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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 December 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 15 December 2025. These drawings are unacceptable, as they introduce new matter.
The amendments to Figure 2E include a new element, T3, and include a size, shape, and disposition of a new bond pad that was not in the originally filed disclosure and therefore the amendment to Figure 2E filed 15 December 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification
The amendment filed 15 December 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“the pad 252 may have a third thickness T3, which may be different than the second thickness T2 of the heat spreader 250” [0033].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1, 3-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. 8,710,675) in view of Chiu et al. et al. (U.S. 2018/0005974) and Bayan et al. (U.S. 6,452,255).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches an electronic package, comprising:
a package substrate (substrate 502/506, Figure 5);
a die stack on the package substrate, wherein a topmost die of the die stack is farthest from a surface of the package substrate (die stack 124/108/126/116, Figures 1 and 5);
a mold layer encapsulating the die stack, wherein the mold layer is a single continuous material in a cross-sectional perspective, and the mold layer is in direct physical contact with the package substrate (mold layer 128 or 530, Figures 1 and 5);
a bond pad having a first surface and a second surface, wherein the die stack is electrically coupled to the first surface of the bond pad with a first wire bond (bond pad 402, wire bond 106, Figures 1 and 5),
wherein the second surface of the bond pad is coplanar with a surface of the mold layer (bond pad 402, mold layer 128 or 530, Figure 5); and
a heat spreader in direct contact with a top surface of the topmost die of the die stack, the heat spreader laterally spaced apart from the die pad (heat spreader 104, topmost die 124/108, Figures 1 and 5), wherein:
the heat spreader has a first maximum thickness measured in a first direction,
the bond pad has a second maximum thickness in the first direction, and
the first direction is perpendicular to the first surface of the bond pad (bond pad 402, heat spreader 104, Figures 1 and 5).
However, they do not explicitly disclose a second wire bond coupling a first die of the die stack directly to a second die of the die stack or that the first maximum thickness is different than the second maximum thickness. Chiu et al. discloses a similar device wherein a memory die stack is encapsulated and mounted on a package substrate, wherein a second wire bond couples a first die of the die stack directly to a second die of the die stack (Chiu et al., die stack 124a, bond wires 130, encapsulation 142, substrate 102, Figures 10, 12, and 14). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a second wire bond coupling a first die of the die stack directly to a second die of the die stack in Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. to reduce damage to bond wires and reduce a signal to noise ratio (Chiu, Paragraph 5). Furthermore, it has been held that a conclusion of obviousness can be drawn from “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results,” such as wire bonding chips in a memory stack directly to each other, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first maximum thickness is different than the second maximum thickness. Bayan discloses a device in the same field of endeavor wherein a first maximum thickness of a heat spreader measured in a first direction perpendicular to a top surface of the bond pad is different than a second maximum thickness of a bond pad measured in said first direction (Bayan et al., Figure 6f, heat spreader 207, bond pad 209). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the thickness of the heat spreader to be different than a thickness of the bond pad in Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. and Bayan et al. in order to reduce the inductance of the device (Bayan et al. Column 2, Lines 1-5). Furthermore, it has been held that a conclusion of obviousness can be drawn from “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” such as making heat spreaders and bond pads with different maximum thicknesses, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses a surface of the heat spreader is coplanar with the surface of the mold layer (Kim et al., heat spreader 104, mold layer 128 or 530, Figures 1 and 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein the heat spreader and the bond pad comprise the same material (Kim et al., Column 3, Lines 61-67).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein the die stack is separated from the package substrate by the mold layer (Kim et al., mold layer 128 or 530, die stack 116/108, substrate 502/506, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses a third wire bond electrically coupling the second surface of the bond pad to the package substrate (Kim et al., wire bond 510, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses: a second die stack positioned above the first die stack (Kim et al., second die stack 116/126/108/124 of package 512, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein the second die stack is encapsulated in a second mold layer (Kim et al., second mold layer 128 of package 512, Figure 5) .
Regarding Claim 10, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses a second bond pad having a first surface and a second surface, wherein the second die stack is electrically coupled to the first surface of the second bond pad with a third wire bond, and wherein the second surface of the second bond pad is coplanar with a surface of the second mold layer (Kim et al., wire bond 106, second bond pad 102/402, second mold layer 128 of package 512, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein the die stack comprises a plurality of memory dies (Kim et al., Column 5, Lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further disclose wherein the die stack comprises four or more memory dies (Chiu et al., memory die 124, Figure 14, Paragraph 31). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the die stack to comprise four or more memory dies in Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. in order to provide high density functions (Kim et al., Column 5, Lines 45-50) and increase package memory capacity (Chiu et al., Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim et al. discloses a die module, comprising:
a plurality of dies in a die stack, the die stack configured to couple to a package substrate, wherein a topmost die of the die stack is farthest from a surface of the package substrate (die stack 124/108/126/116, Figures 1 and 5);
a mold layer encapsulating the plurality of dies, wherein the mold layer is a single continuous material in a cross-sectional perspective, and the mold layer is configured to directly physically contact the package substrate (mold layer 128 or 530, Figures 1 and 5);
a heat spreader in direct contact with a top surface of the topmost die of the plurality of dies, wherein:
a surface of the heat spreader is coplanar with a first surface of the mold layer (heat spreader 104, topmost die 124/108, Figures 1 and 5), and
the heat spreader has a first maximum thickness measured in a first direction (heat spreader 104, Figures 1 and 5);
a bond pad with a first surface and a second surface, wherein:
a first surface of the bond pad is coplanar with the first surface of the mold layer (bond pad 102/402, Figures 1 and 5),
a first wire bond electrically couples the second surface of the bond pad to one of the plurality of dies (wire bond 106, Figures 1 and 5),
the bond pad is laterally spaced apart from the heat spreader,
the bond pad has a second maximum thickness in the first direction, and
the first direction is perpendicular to the first surface of the bond pad (bond pad 102/402, Figures 1 and 5).
However, they do not explicitly disclose a second wire bond coupling a first die of the die stack directly to a second die of the die stack or wherein the first maximum thickness is different than the second maximum thickness. Chiu et al. discloses a similar device wherein a memory die stack is encapsulated and mounted on a package substrate, wherein a second wire bond couples a first die of the die stack directly to a second die of the die stack (Chiu et al., die stack 124a, bond wires 130, encapsulation 142, substrate 102, Figures 10, 12, and 14). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a second wire bond coupling a first die of the die stack directly to a second die of the die stack in Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. to reduce damage to bond wires and reduce a signal to noise ratio (Chiu, Paragraph 5). Furthermore, it has been held that a conclusion of obviousness can be drawn from “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results,” such as wire bonding chips in a memory stack directly to each other, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first maximum thickness is different than the second maximum thickness. Bayan discloses a device in the same field of endeavor wherein a first maximum thickness of a heat spreader measured in a first direction perpendicular to a top surface of the bond pad is different than a second maximum thickness of a bond pad measured in said first direction (Bayan et al., Figure 6f, heat spreader 207, bond pad 209). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the thickness of the heat spreader to be different than a thickness of the bond pad in Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. and Bayan et al. in order to reduce the inductance of the device (Bayan et al. Column 2, Lines 1-5). Furthermore, it has been held that a conclusion of obviousness can be drawn from “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” such as making heat spreaders and bond pads with different maximum thicknesses, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of dies are stacked in an offset orientation (Kim et al., die stack 108/116, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein the bond pad and the heat spreader comprise the same material (Kim et al., Column 3, Lines 61-67).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of dies are memory dies (Kim et al., Column 5, Lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further disclose wherein the die stack comprises four or more memory dies (Chiu et al., memory die 124, Figure 14, Paragraph 31). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the die stack to comprise four or more memory dies in Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. in order to provide high density functions (Kim et al., Column 5, Lines 45-50) and increase package memory capacity (Chiu et al., Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein the bond pad is laterally adjacent to the heat spreader (Kim et al., heat spreader 104, bond pad 104, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Kim et al. in view of Chiu et al. further discloses wherein a portion of the mold layer separates a sidewall of the heat spreader from a sidewall of the bond pad (Kim et al., heat spreader 104, bond pad 104, mold layer 128 or 530, Figures 1 and 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, the Applicant argues that Chiu and Bayan fail to disclose a “heat spreader”, “a topmost die of the die stack is farthest from a surface of the package substrate”, or that a heat spreader is “in direct contact with a top surface of the topmost die of the die stack” and are therefore not analogous art. In response to applicant's argument that the Chiu and Bayan references are is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the references are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, which is integrated circuit packaging systems. Regarding Applicant’s argument that heat spreader of the Bayan reference “cannot be considered a heat spreader as there is no mention of the attach pad 207 providing any head spreading functionalities”, it is noted that the Bayan reference explicitly describes the heat spreader 200/207 as formed of metal, including copper, and therefore inherently discloses that it provides heat spreading functionalities (Bayan et al., Column 5, Lines 14-34). Furthermore, the originally filed disclosure of the Application does not define any characteristics of what a “heat spreader” is beyond that it can “improve thermal management” [0017], is the same material as the bond pad [022], and is electrically conductive [023]. There is no disclosure even to what material the heat spreader comprises and therefore applying any meaning to the term “heat spreader” beyond the aforementioned disclosed characteristics would threaten the enablement of the limitation itself. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, the Applicant argues that the Kim reference fails to disclose “a second wire bond coupling a first die of the die stack directly to a second die of the die stack” and that “the first maximum thickness [of the heat spreader] is different than the second maximum thickness [of the bond bad]” and argues that the Chiu and Bayan references fail to disclose that “a topmost die of the die stack is farthest from a surface of the package substrate” and that a heat spreader is “in direct contact with a top surface of the topmost die of the die stack”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Chiu and Bayan references disclose the missing limitations of the Kim reference’s disclosure and the Kim reference discloses that “a topmost die of the die stack is farthest from a surface of the package substrate” and that a heat spreader is “in direct contact with a top surface of the topmost die of the die stack”. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Abbigale Boyle whose telephone number is 571-270-7919. The Examiner can normally be reached from 11 A.M to 7 P.M., Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith, can be reached at 571-272-2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance form a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Abbigale Boyle
Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ABBIGALE A BOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights