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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second die and signal routing in the laminate substrate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) in view of Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136).
Regarding claim 1, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) teaches An electronic device package (sub-assembly 700, Figure 7A) comprising: a laminate substrate (substrate 101 + elongated copper traces 103 + pad 102 + bond balls 717 + underfill material 718, Figures 1B + 7B); a plurality of connection pads (pad connectors 304, Figure 4B+7A) disposed on the laminate substrate and along a perimeter of the electronic device package, first connection pads (Figure 7A) of the plurality of connection pads that are along a first side of the laminate substrate having a first orientation that is different than a second orientation of second connection pads (Figure 7A) of the plurality of connection pads that are along a second side of the laminate substrate, the first side being adjacent to the second side,; and a die (die 713, Figure 7C, paragraphs 0043-0044) enclosed within a packaging structure (molding compound 716 + substrate 101 + elongated copper traces 103 + pad 102 + bond balls 717 + underfill material 718, Figure 7B + 7C, paragraph 0045), as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
387
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) is silent to teach and each of the plurality of connection pads is a minimum size for Kelvin sensing in a process technology for manufacturing the electronic device package.
In an analogous art, Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teaches and each of the plurality of connection pads is a minimum size for Kelvin sensing in a process technology for manufacturing the electronic device package (contacting terminals 210 or terminals 112, Figure 1B or 10A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) with the teachings of Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) thereby having connection pads configured for Kelvin sensing.
Regarding claim 2, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) further teaches further comprising an exposed paddle disposed centrally on a same side of the laminate substrate as the plurality of connection pads (copper pad 106, Figure 1A, paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 4, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) further teaches wherein the plurality of connection pads comprises 16 connection pads (Figure 1B), but is silent to teach the electronic device package having a footprint of 2 millimeters by 2 millimeters.
PNG
media_image3.png
192
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) teaches the need for dimensional sizing for a custom substrate (paragraph 0004) such that here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.0(II)(A) states Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the electronic package of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) thereby having a footprint per PCB design requirements.
Regarding claim 6, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) further teaches wherein each of the connection pads is spaced apart from an adjacent connection pad by a minimum spacing of a process technology for manufacturing the electronic device package (Figure 7A).
PNG
media_image4.png
387
387
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) further teaches wherein each of the connection pads has dimensions of 260 micrometers (µm) +/- 26 µm by 170 µm +/- 17 µm (Figure 1B, col 7 line 67 – col 8 line 2, further MPEP 2144.05(I) states In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)).
Regarding claim 9, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) further teaches further comprising a second die and signal routing in the laminate substrate that provides one or more electrical connections between the die and the second die (col 7, lines 36-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to some one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) thereby incorporating a second die in the substate with signal routing for communication between dies.
Regarding claim 10, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) further teaches further comprising signal routing in the laminate substrate that provides an electrical connection between the die and a connection pad of the plurality of connection pads (Figure 1B + 7B).
PNG
media_image5.png
231
366
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) further teaches wherein each of the connection pads is rectangular (pad connectors 104, Figure 1A/1B + 7B, paragraph 0028).
PNG
media_image6.png
387
387
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) further teaches wherein the electronic device package is a land grid array package (paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 13, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) further teaches wherein one or more of the connection pads provide input/output connections to the die (terminals 112, Figure 1B, col 2 lines 7-28 + col 6 line 33 - col 7 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) thereby having connection pads configured to communicate with the die.
Regarding claim 14, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of claim 1, as claimed. Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) further teaches wherein a central area of the electronic device package is free from the plurality of connection pads.
PNG
media_image7.png
211
351
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) thereby having a central area free of connection pads per PCB design requirements.
Regarding claim 15, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) further teaches wherein a connection pad of the plurality of connection pads is spaced apart from an edge of the laminate substrate (Figure 7A), but is silent to such spacing having a distance in a range from 70 µm to 95 µm.
PNG
media_image8.png
348
336
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) teaches the need for dimensional sizing for a custom substrate (paragraph 0004) such that here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.0(II)(A) states Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the distance range of the connection pads of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) thereby having pads arranged from an edge of the laminate substrate per design requirements.
Regarding claim 16, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed. Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) further teaches wherein two adjacent connection pads of the plurality of connection pads have a pitch distance in a range from 380 µm to 420 µm (Figure 1B, col 7 line 67 – col 8 line 2, further MPEP 2144.05(I) states In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)).
Regarding claim 17, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) teaches An electronic device package (sub-assembly 700, Figure 7A) comprising: a plurality of connection pads (pad connectors 304, Figure 4B+7A) disposed on a substrate, and a die enclosed within a packaging structure (substrate 101 + elongated copper traces 103 + pad 102 + bond balls 717 + underfill material 718, Figures 1B + 7B), as claimed.
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) is silent to teach the plurality of connection pads comprising 16 connection pads positioned around a periphery of the substrate, and each of the plurality of connection pads dimensioned for Kelvin contacting; and wherein the electronic device package has a footprint of 2 millimeters by 2 millimeters.
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) teaches the need for dimensional sizing for a custom substrate (paragraph 0004) such that here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.0(II)(A) states Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
In an analogous art, Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teaches the plurality of connection pads comprising 16 connection pads positioned around a periphery of the substrate (terminals 112, Figure 1B, col 6 line 51 - col 7 line 7), and each of the plurality of connection pads dimensioned for Kelvin contacting (contacting terminals 210 or terminals 112, Figure 1B or 10A).
PNG
media_image9.png
211
351
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) with the teachings of Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) thereby having 16 connection pads configured for Kelvin sensing arranged around a periphery of the package substrate and an overall package footprint per PCB design requirements.
Regarding claim 18, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of claim 17, as claimed. Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) further teaches wherein each of the connection pads has dimensions of 260 µm +/- 10% by 170 µm +/- 10% (Figure 1B, col 7 line 67 – col 8 line 2, further MPEP 2144.05(I) states In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)).
Regarding claim 19, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of claim 17, as claimed. Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) further teaches further comprising an exposed die paddle (Figure 1B, col 6 line 51 - col 7 line 7) positioned on the substrate on a same side as the plurality of connection pads, the exposed die paddle being surrounded by the plurality of connection pads (Figure 1B).
PNG
media_image10.png
211
351
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) teaches an electronic device package (sub-assembly 700, Figure 7A) comprising: a laminate substrate (Figure 1B+7B) comprising one or more signal routing layers; a plurality of connection pads (pad connectors 304, Figure 4B+7A) disposed on the laminate substrate, and a die (die 713, Figure 7C, paragraphs 0043-0044) enclosed within a packaging structure (molding compound 716 + substrate 101 + elongated copper traces 103 + pad 102 + bond balls 717 + underfill material 718, Figure 7B + 7C, paragraph 0045), the die electrically connected to connection pads of the plurality of connection pads by way of the one or more signal routing layers (Figure 7B + 7C), but is silent to the electronic device package having a footprint of 2 millimeters by 2 millimeters.
PNG
media_image5.png
231
366
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
522
430
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) teaches the need for dimensional sizing for a custom substrate (paragraph 0004) such that here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.0(II)(A) states Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) is silent to teach the plurality of connection pads comprising 16 connection pads positioned around a periphery of the laminate substrate, and each of the plurality of connection pads having rectangular footprint with dimensions of 260 µm +/- 10% by 170 µm +/- 10.
In an analogous art, Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teaches the plurality of connection pads comprising 16 connection pads positioned around a periphery of the laminate substrate (terminals 112, Figure 1B), and each of the plurality of connection pads having rectangular footprint with dimensions of 260 µm +/- 10% by 170 µm +/- 10% (Figure 1B, col 7 line 67 – col 8 line 2, further MPEP 2144.05(I) teaches In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)).
PNG
media_image12.png
211
351
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) with the teachings of Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) thereby having an electronic package with 16 connection pads around the periphery of the substrate, with rectangular dimensions capable of Kelvin sensing, and an package footprint per PCB design requirements.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) in view of Hsu (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0159155A1).
Regarding claim 3, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 2, as claimed.
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) are silent to teach wherein a corner of the exposed paddle comprises an orientation feature indicating a position of a particular pin.
In an analogous art, Hsu (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0159155A1) teaches wherein a corner of the exposed paddle (die paddle 10, Figure 2) comprises an orientation feature (Figure 2) indicating a position of a particular pin.
PNG
media_image13.png
411
410
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for some one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) with the teachings of Hsu (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0159155A1) thereby having an easily identifiable feature on the paddle which corresponds to a pin during kelvin sensing.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) in view of Lee (US Patent No 7,102,208).
Regarding claim 5, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed.
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) are silent to teach wherein a different numbers of connection pads of the plurality of connection pads are positioned along the first side than the second side.
In an analogous art, Lee (US Patent No 7,102,208) teaches wherein a different numbers of connection pads of the plurality of connection pads are positioned along the first side than the second side (Figure 3).
PNG
media_image14.png
387
313
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) with the teachings of Lee (US Patent No 7,102,208) thereby having a connection pad arrangement configured for kelvin sensing with a different number of connection pads on adjacent sides.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) in view of Wang (Chinese Patent Application CN21275304U).
Regarding claim 8, Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) teach the electronic device package of Claim 1, as claimed.
Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) are silent to teach wherein the die comprises an analog switch.
In a related art, Wang (Chinese Patent Application CN21275304U) teaches wherein the die comprises an analog switch (signal processing unit 130, paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chan (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0303137A1) and Trebibergs (US Patent No 12,596,136) with the teachings of Wang (Chinese Patent Application CN21275304U) thereby having a die comprising an analog switch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEM M MOHAMED-ALY whose telephone number is (571)270-0312. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/KAREEM M MOHAMED-ALY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights