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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, lines 4-5 recite the limitation “a heat source region configured to thermally connected to a second electronic component”. This language is unclear. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as-- comprises a heat source region --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,588,470. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the instant application is merely a broad presentation of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,588,470.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,266. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 8 of the instant application are merely broad presentations of claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,266.
.
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 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obata et al. (US 10,298,239; “Obata”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Obata teaches an electronic package structure (figure 2), comprising:
a carrier (8a);
a first electronic component (2) disposed adjacent to the carrier (8a), wherein the first electronic component (2) comprises a heat source region (col. 6, lines 55-57);
a second electronic component (4) is thermally connected to the heat source region (of IC 2) by a connecting layer (bonding member 9 between IC 2 and package 4); and
a wire (7) electrically connecting the first electronic component (2) and the carrier (8a), wherein the wire (7) has a first end (connected to IC 2) and a second end (connected to carrier 8a) opposite to the first end, wherein the second end (connected to IC 2) of the wire (7) is on the carrier (8a) and below a top surface (connected to lid 8b) of the carrier (Figure 2 of Obata teaches stepped portions of carrier 8a and the wire 7 being connected below a top surface of the top step.).
As for claim 2, Obata teaches wherein the carrier (8a) has a first surface (surface where wire 7 is connected to package 8a) recessed from the top surface (connected to lid 8b) of the carrier, wherein the first electronic component (2) has an active surface (top) and a backside surface (bottom) opposite to the active surface, wherein an elevation of the first surface (surface where wire 7 is connected to package 8a) of the carrier (8a) is between the active surface (top) and the backside surface (bottom) of the first electronic component (2).
As for claim 3, Obata teaches wherein the first end of the wire (7) is connected to the active surface (top) of the first electronic component (2) and the second end of the wire (7) is connected to the first surface (surface where wire 7 is connected to package 8a) of the carrier (8a).
Regarding claim 4, Obata teaches wherein the carrier (8a) is monolithic (See figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Obata teaches wherein the first electronic component (2) is spaced apart from the carrier (8a) by a distance (See spacing between 2 and 8a in figure 2).
As for claim 7, Obata teaches a support component (one of the bonding members 9 formed between package 4 and package 8) disposed at or near a center of a bottom surface of the first electronic component, wherein a width of the support component is less than a width of the first electronic component (See the width of first electronic component 2 and the width of one of the bonding members 9 formed between package 4 and package 8).
Regarding claim 8, Obata teaches an electronic package structure (figure 2), comprising:
a carrier (8a);
a first electronic component (2) disposed adjacent to the carrier (8a), wherein the first electronic component (2) comprises a heat source region (col. 6, lines 55-57) thermally connected to a second electronic component (4); and
a support component (bonding member 9) disposed between the first electronic component (2) and the carrier (8a), wherein a projection of the support component (9) on the carrier (8a) and a projection of the heat source region (IC 2 generates heat; col. 6, lines 55-57) on the carrier (8a) overlap in a vertical direction (see structure of figure 2).
As for claim 11, Obata teaches wherein a geometric center of the support component (9) is substantially aligned with a geometric center (See configuration of figure 2) of the first electronic component (2).
As for claim 12, Obata teaches wherein the support component has a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface opposite to the first lateral surface, wherein the first lateral surface is laterally spaced apart from the carrier by a first space, and wherein the second lateral surface is laterally spaced apart from the carrier by a second space (See spacing between bonding members 9 and the carrier 8a in figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Obata teaches wherein the first space and the second space are free of any elements (As seen in figure 2, there are no elements placed between the bonding members 9 and the carrier 8a.).
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasahara et al. (US 2006/0290239; “Kasahara”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kasahara teaches an electronic package structure (figures 1A and 1B), comprising:
a carrier (3, 6);
a first electronic component (5) disposed adjacent to the carrier (3, 6), wherein the first electronic component (5) comprises a heat source region (IC 5 comprises a heating element. Para. [0037]);
a second electronic component (2) is thermally connected to the heat source region (of IC 5) by a connecting layer (paste; para. [0037]); and
a wire (53) electrically connecting the first electronic component (5) and the carrier (3, 6), wherein the wire has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end (See figure 1A), wherein the second end of the wire (53) is on the carrier (3, 6) and below a top surface (top surface of cover 6) of the carrier (3, 6).
As for claim 5, Kasahara teaches wherein the first electronic component (5) is spaced apart from the carrier (3, 6) by a distance (See spacing in figure 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Kasahara teaches an electronic package structure (figures 1A and 1B), comprising:
a carrier (3, 6);
a first electronic component (5) disposed adjacent to the carrier (3, 6), wherein the first electronic component (5) comprises a heat source region (IC 5 comprises a heating element. Para. [0037]) thermally connected to a second electronic component (2); and
a support (4) component disposed between the first electronic component (5) and the carrier (3, 6), wherein a projection of the support component (4) on the carrier (3, 6) and a projection of the heat source region (of IC 5) on the carrier (3, 6) overlap in a vertical direction (See configuration of figure 1B).
As for claim 9, Kasahara teaches a first wire (54) disposed at a first side (left side of vibrator 2 in figure 1A) of the second electronic component (2), and connecting the second electronic component (2) to the first electronic component (5); and
a second wire (54) disposed at a second side (right side of vibrator 2 in figure 1A) of the second electronic component (2) opposite to the first side (left side of vibrator 2), and connecting the second electronic component (2) to the first electronic component (5),
wherein the projection of the support component (4) on the carrier (3, 6) is between a projection of the first wire (54) on the carrier (3, 6) and a projection of the second wire (54) on the carrier (3, 6).
Regarding claim 11, Kasahara teaches wherein a geometric center of the support component (4) is substantially aligned with a geometric center of the first electronic component (5) (See configuration in figure 1B).
As for claim 12, Kasahara teaches wherein the support component has a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface opposite to the first lateral surface, wherein the first lateral surface is laterally spaced apart from the carrier by a first space, and wherein the second lateral surface is laterally spaced apart from the carrier by a second space (See spacing between adhesive 4 and the carrier 3 in figure 1B).
Regarding claim 13, Kasahara teaches wherein the first space and the second space are free of any elements (As seen in figure 1B, there are no elements placed between the adhesive 4 and the carrier 3.).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 5,917,272; “Clark”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 14, Clark teaches an electronic package structure (1), comprising:
a ceramic substrate (30; col. 2, lines 46-47);
a first electronic component (28, 40) disposed on the ceramic substrate (30), the first electronic component (28, 40) having a first surface (bottom of 28) and a second surface (top of 28) opposite to the first surface (bottom of 28), wherein the first electronic component (28, 40) is configured to provide a heat source (with heater 40); and
a support structure and an insulator (glass support insulators 32) disposed between the first surface (bottom of 28) of the first electronic component (28, 40) and the ceramic substrate (30), wherein an equivalent thermal resistance of the support structure and the insulator (32) is greater than a thermal resistance of the ceramic substrate (30) (In the instant application, the claimed difference in thermal resistance is due to the materials used for the substrate and insulating support structure. Specifically, the instant application uses a ceramic substrate (see limitation above) and glass insulating support structures (para. [0029] in the printed application publication). Because Clark also uses a ceramic substrate 30 (col. 2, lines 46-47) and glass insulating support structures 32 (col. 2, lines 47-79), the thermal resistance of the glass insulating support structures 32 is also greater than the thermal resistance of the ceramic substrate 30.).
As for claim 15, Clark teaches wherein a projection of the support structure (32) on the ceramic substrate (30) is less than a projection of the first electronic component (28, 40) on the ceramic substrate (30).
Regarding claim 16, Clark teaches a wire (44) electrically connecting the first electronic component (28, 40) and the ceramic substrate (30), wherein the support structure (32) non-overlaps the wire (44) vertically in a cross-sectional view (See figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Clark teaches wherein the support structure (32) and the first electronic component (28, 40) collaboratively present a T-shape in a cross-sectional view (See view in figure 1).
As for claim 18, Clark teaches wherein the first electronic component (28, 40) has a first lateral surface (left side surface of substrate 28 in figure 1) and a second lateral surface (right side surface of substrate 28 in figure 1) opposite to the first lateral surface, wherein the support structure (32) has a third lateral surface (left side surface of insulator 32.1 in figure 1) and a fourth lateral surface (right side surface of insulator 32.2 in figure 1) opposite to the third lateral surface, wherein a first distance between the first lateral surface (left side surface of substrate 28 in figure 1) and the third lateral surface (left side surface of insulator 32.1 in figure 1) is substantially identical to a second distance between the second lateral surface (right side surface of substrate 28 in figure 1) and the fourth lateral surface (right side surface of insulator 32.2 in figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Clark teaches wherein the support structure (32) directly contacts the ceramic substrate (30).
Regarding claim 20, Clark wherein the support structure (32) includes a glass (col. 2, lines 47-49).
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.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata.
Regarding claim 6, Obata teaches the electronic package structure of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein a horizontal distance between the first electronic component and the carrier is less than a vertical distance between the first electronic component and the carrier in a cross-sectional view.
However, according to the Federal Circuit, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device performing the same operation where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). MPEP § 2144.04 (IV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative dimensions of the electronic package structure of Obata because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, Obata teaches the electronic package structure of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the support component covers a first portion of a first surface of the first electronic component and exposes a second portion of the first surface of the first electronic component, wherein an area of the first portion is less an area of the second portion.
However, according to the Federal Circuit, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device performing the same operation where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). MPEP § 2144.04 (IV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative dimensions of the electronic package structure of Obata because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara.
Regarding claim 6, Kasahara teaches the electronic package structure of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein a horizontal distance between the first electronic component and the carrier is less than a vertical distance between the first electronic component and the carrier in a cross-sectional view.
However, according to the Federal Circuit, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device performing the same operation where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). MPEP § 2144.04 (IV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative dimensions of the electronic package structure of Kasahara because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, Kasahara teaches the electronic package structure of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the support component covers a first portion of a first surface of the first electronic component and exposes a second portion of the first surface of the first electronic component, wherein an area of the first portion is less an area of the second portion.
However, according to the Federal Circuit, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device performing the same operation where the only difference between the prior art device and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). MPEP § 2144.04 (IV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative dimensions of the electronic package structure of Kasahara because such a modification would have been merely a design choice that added no patentably distinct subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849 December 1, 2025