DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s invention filed on 10/07/2024.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-13.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Specification Objection
The specification has been checked to the extend necessary to determine the presence of possible minor errors. However, the Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 first through hole with a conical shape with a draft angle of no greater than 45 degrees recited in claim 8 must be shown in the drawings 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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niccum (WO 2021/059092).
Regarding claim 1, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) all aspects of a device 100 (see, e.g., Niccum: pg. 5 par. [15]) comprising:
A flexible substrate 10/12/14 including a first major surface 10b and a second major surface 10a opposite the first major surface 10b
A circuit component 30/30’ attached to the second major surface of the flexible substrate 10a
wherein:
The circuit component 30/30’ is bounded by a plurality of chip edges and a first contact pad 32 disposed adjacent to a first chip edge of the circuit component 30/30’
The flexible substrate 10/12/14 further comprises a first through hole 24 extending through the flexible substrate 10/12/14 and at least partially overlapping the first contact pad 32
A first channel 22 on the first major surface 10b that extends across a second chip edge such that an inner portion of the first channel 22 overlies a portion of the chip 30/30’
wherein:
The inner portion of the first channel 22 connects to the first through hole 24
The device 100 further comprises a first electrically conductive via disposed in the first through hole 24 forming a first electrical contact with the first contact pad 32 and a first electrically conductive trace 42 disposed in the first channel 22 and connected to the first electrically conductive via forming a first electrically conductive junction comprising a neck region that does not cross the first chip edge
Regarding claim 2, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that the first chip edge and the second chip edge are the same edge.
Regarding claim 3, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that the first chip edge and the second chip edge are different edges.
Regarding claim 4, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that the first channel 22 partially extends into the flexible substrate 10/12/14 from the first major surface 10b.
Regarding claim 5, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that the flexible substrate 10/12/14 comprises an adhesive layer 14 and the circuit component 30/30’ is attached to the adhesive layer 14.
Regarding claim 6, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that the flexible substrate 10/12/14 is a multilayer structure comprising an adhesive layer 14 and a polymer layer 12 (see, e.g., Niccum: pg. 24, par. 15).
Regarding claim 9, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that:
A second through hole 24 extending through the flexible substrate 10/12/14 and at least partially overlapping a second contact pad 32 of the circuit component 30/30’
wherein:
The second contact pad 32 is adjacent to a third chip edge of the circuit component 30/30’ and a second electrically conductive via disposed in the second through hole 24 forming a second electrical contact with the second contact pad 32
Regarding claim 10, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that the inner portion of the first channel 22 connects to the second through hole 24 and the first electrically conductive trace 42 disposed in the first channel 22 is connected to the second electrically conductive via forming a second electrically conductive junction having a neck region that does not cross the third chip edge.
Regarding claim 11, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that:
A second channel 22 on the first major surface 10b of the flexible substrate 10/12/14 that extends across a fourth chip edge such that an inner portion of the second channel 22 overlies a portion of the chip 30/30’
wherein:
The inner portion of the second channel 22 connects to the second through hole 24
The device 100 further comprises a second electrically conductive trace disposed in the second channel 22 and connected to the second electrically conductive via forming a second electrically conductive junction having a neck region that does not cross the third chip edge
Regarding claim 12, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that the first chip edge and the third chip edge are the same edge.
Regarding claim 13, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) that the first chip edge and the third chip edge are different edges.
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niccum in view of Feng (US 2021/0127478).
Regarding claim 7, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) most aspects of a device 100 (see, e.g., Niccum: pg. 5, par. [15]) comprising an electrically conductive junction that tapers away from the through hole 24 in a plane of the first major surface 10b (see, e.g., Niccum: fig. 3C). Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: fig. 3C) that the first electrically conductive junction has a bar shape.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the first electrically conductive junction has a teardrop shape, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the electrically conductive junction, disclosed by Niccum as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular teardrop shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed teardrop shape of the electrically conductive junction is known in the art: Feng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, e.g., Feng: fig. 14) that the teardrop shape of the electrically conductive junction 151 (see, e.g., Feng: par. [0093]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the teardrop shape of the electrically conductive junction of Feng, because the teardrop shape of the electrically conductive junction is known in the semiconductor art to be the shape of the electrically conductive junction similarly used for in instant invention and Niccum, as suggested by Feng, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common-sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niccum in view of Tuckerman (US 2008/0002460).
Regarding claim 8, Niccum shows (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) most aspects of a device 100 (see, e.g., Niccum: pg. 5, par. [15]) comprising a first through hole that has a conical shape (see, e.g., Niccum: pg. 21 par. [5]).
However, Niccum fails (see, e.g., Niccum: figs. 1A-1H) to show that the first through hole has a draft angle that is no greater than 45 degrees. Tuckerman, in a similar device to Niccum, shows (see, e.g., Tuckerman: fig. 1) that the through holes that have a draft angle that is no greater than 45 degrees (see, e.g., Tuckerman: par. [0270]). Tuckerman also shows (see, e.g., Tuckerman: fig. 1) that the through holes that have a draft angle that is no greater than 45 degrees are formed to increase the integration density of chips and corresponding decrease in the spacing between adjacent bond pads of a chip demanding that a cap to be mounted to the chip has correspondingly decreased spacing between interconnects (see, e.g., Tuckerman: par. [0270]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the through hole that has a draft angle that is no greater than 45 degrees of Tuckerman in the device of Niccum to increase the integration density of chips and corresponding decrease in the spacing between adjacent bond pads of a chip demanding that a cap to be mounted to the chip has correspondingly decreased spacing between interconnects.
Furthermore, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of draft angles, and differences in angles will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the angle differences, and Tuckerman has identified (see, e.g., Tuckerman: par. [0270]) such angle differences as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have these angle differences to be different in the device of Niccum in view of Tuckerman.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed angle differences or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
