DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/416151, attorney docket 102351-1673-01727/US10498, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc., and has a priority date based on the date filed of 9/18/2020. Claims 1-4, 10-12, 14, 21, 22, 24-26, 33-39 are pending and are considered below. The application has been reassigned to examiner John Bodnar. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 1 and correctly argues that the art of record Cho does not teach a heat sink that does not contact the RDL.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 26 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: it is a species directed to a previously withdrawn group.
Since applicants have received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 26 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicants traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 “reinforcement structure that includes an extending portion bonded to a portion of the first electronic device and extending beyond a lateral surface of the first electronic device” recited in claim 21 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 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21, 22 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites, an extending portion bonded to a portion of the first electronic device and extending beyond a lateral surface of the first electronic device, wherein
a horizontal width of an entirety of the extending portion is less than a horizontal width of a spacing between the first electronic device and the second electronic device and is less than a vertical thickness of the reinforcement structure.” Examiner is unclear what element is being claimed and could not find guidance in the disclosure. This element may be part of a species that was restricted.
Dependent claims include the defect of the parent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22, 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Huang et al (U.S. 2018/0350755).
As for claim 1,
Huang teaches in figure 7A, a package structure, comprising:
a redistribution structure (40);
a first electronic device (44 right side) disposed over the redistribution structure;
a second electronic device (44 left side) disposed over the redistribution;
a reinforcement structure (78-thermal interface material TIM acts as a stress reducer [0034]) disposed over the second electronic device;
and a heat dissipation structure (70) defining a cavity (shown in figure 10a) for accommodating the redistribution structure, the first electronic device, the second electronic device and the reinforcement structure,
wherein the heat dissipation structure is free from contacting the redistribution structure. (contacts the lower RDL, 60 only).
As for Claim 2,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 1, and teaches a first protection material (46) encapsulating a portion of the first electronic device and a portion of the second electronic device, wherein the first protection material includes a curved lateral surface free from vertically overlapping the reinforcement structure (polymer underfill mold inherently and naturally forms a curved side surface),
wherein a portion of the reinforcement structure is over the first electronic device (78 covers both devices).
As for claim 11,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 1, and teaches a width of the reinforcement structure is greater than a width of the second electronic device (shown wider than both ICs), and
wherein the heat dissipation structure is attached to the first electronic device and the reinforcement structure through a thermal material, and the thermal material exposes a portion of a bottom surface of the heat dissipation structure. (TIM attaches the heat spreader 70 to the ICs, but does not cover region 70BS-2)
As for claim 12,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 11, and teaches the reinforcement structure covers an entire top surface of the second electronic device (shown in figure 7a), and
wherein the heat dissipation structure includes an inner lateral surface (at 70b) extending downward from the bottom surface of the heat dissipation structure, and the thermal material is free from contacting the inner lateral surface of the heat dissipation structure. (shown in figure 7A).
As for claim 14,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 11, and Huang teaches a first protection material (48) encapsulating a portion of the first electronic device and a portion of the second electronic device, wherein the first protection material includes a curved lateral surface vertically overlapping the thermal material (shown overlapping at the edges in figure 7a).
As for claim 21,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 1, and Huang teaches that the reinforcement structure (78) includes an extending portion bonded to a portion of the first electronic device and extending beyond a lateral surface of the first electronic device,
a horizontal width of an entirety of the extending portion is less than a horizontal width of a spacing between the first electronic device and the second electronic device and is less than a vertical thickness of the reinforcement structure. (there is a portion of the TIM the extends beyond the IC that is less than the distance between the ICs. Examiner is unclear what element is being claimed and could not find guidance in the disclosure. See 112a rejection above.)
As for Claim 22,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 21 and teaches the first electronic device includes an active surface (bottom) and at least one electrical contact (38, figure 1) disposed adjacent to the active surface, and
the extending portion is free from vertically overlapping the at least one electrical contact. (the extensions are beyond the sidewall and do not overlap the bumps.)
As for claim 37,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 12, and teaches the redistribution structure includes at least one dielectric layer and at least one circuit layer in contact with the dielectric layer ([0016]), and the at least one dielectric layer is spaced apart from the inner lateral surface of the heat dissipation structure (shown in figure 7a).
As for claim 38,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 21, and teaches the redistribution structure (20) includes at least one dielectric layer and at least one circuit layer in contact with the dielectric layer ([0016]), the reinforcement structure is disposed over the spacing (shown in figure 7a), and
configured to prevent a crack from reaching the redistribution structure, and to protect a high-density region of the at least one circuit layer from being damaged ([0034]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
As for claim 39,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 1, further comprising:
an adhesive material (48) filling a first gap between a lateral surface of the first electronic device and a lateral surface of the reinforcement structure (at the outer edges of 48), and filling a second gap between the reinforcement structure and the second electronic device (at the center);
a first protection material (46) disposed between the first electronic device and the redistribution structure and between the second electronic device and the redistribution structure, wherein the first protection material encapsulates a portion of the first electronic device and a portion of the second electronic device (across the bottom);
and an encapsulant (62) encapsulating the first electronic device, the second electronic device and the first protection material, wherein a bottom surface of the adhesive material contacts and covers an entire top surface of the first protection material, a lateral surface of the adhesive material contacts the encapsulant, and a material of the first protection material is different from a material of the encapsulant. (shown in figure 7a).
Claims 3, 4, 10 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Bhagavat et al. (U.S. 2020/0035606).
As for claim 3,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 2, wherein the curved lateral surface of the first protection material is retracted from a lateral surface of the redistribution structure and exposes a portion of a first surface of the redistribution structure (shown in figures 1 and 7a), and
But Huang does not teach that the reinforcement structure is bonded to a portion of a top surface of the first electronic device and the second electronic device through an adhesive layer.
However, Bhagavat teaches using an adhesive layer to bond the IC to the stiffener (90) [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use an adhesive to bond the TIM to the IC of Huang as taught by Bhagavat because it allows use of a higher conductivity metal TIM/stiffener such as aluminum, instead of a molded one. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 4,
Huang in view of Bhagavat makes obvious the package structure of claim 3, and in the combination, Huang teaches an encapsulant encapsulating the curved lateral surface of the first protection material and covering the exposed portion of the first surface of the redistribution structure,
wherein a width of the reinforcement structure is greater than a width of a spacing between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (78 extends beyond both ICs on both sides.
As for claim 10,
Huang in view of Bhagavat makes obvious the package structure of claim 4, and in the combination, Huang teaches that the encapsulant contacts the reinforcement structure (at the top of the encapsulation layer 48), and
wherein the encapsulant is free from contacting the heat dissipation structure. (the encapsulant is separated from the heat sink 70 by the TIM).
As for claim 33,
Huang in view of Bhagavat makes obvious the package structure of claim 4, and in the combination, Huang teaches a second protection material (62) disposed between the redistribution structure and a base substrate (60), and encapsulating and contacting the redistribution structure and a portion of the encapsulant. (shown in figure 5).
As for claim 34,
Huang in view of Bhagavat makes obvious the package structure of claim 33, and in the combination, Huang teaches a portion of the second protection material extends between the encapsulant and the heat dissipation structure, and the second protection material is free from contacting the heat dissipation structure. (shown in figure 7a).
As for claim 35,
Huang in view of Bhagavat makes obvious the package structure of claim 33, and in the combination, Huang teaches the second protection material includes a curved side surface free from vertically overlapping the reinforcement structure, (polymer encapsulant inherently and naturally forms a curved side surface), and
a horizontal distance between the curved side surface of the second protection material and the heat dissipation structure gradually increases upward. (shown in figure 7a).
As for claim 36,
Huang in view of Bhagavat makes obvious the package structure of claim 33, and in the combination, Huang teaches the second protection material includes a curved side surface free from vertically overlapping the curved lateral surface of the first protection material (shown separated by 48), and the curved side surface of the second protection material horizontally overlaps the curved lateral surface of the first protection material. (shown in figure 7a)
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of in view of Cho et al. (U.S 2019/0206807).
As for claim 24,
Huang teaches the package structure of claim 1, further comprising a base substrate 60) electrically connected to the redistribution structure (at bumps 54),
wherein a bottom portion of the heat dissipation structure is attached to the base substrate through an adhesive material (76),
But Huang does not teach that the first electronic device includes a first top surface having a first elevation and a second top surface having a second elevation higher than the first elevation, and a top surface of the reinforcement structure is level with the second top surface of the first electronic device.
However, Cho teaches in figure 10, a first electronic device (120’) includes a first top surface having a first elevation and a second top surface having a second elevation higher than the first elevation, and a top surface of the reinforcement structure (150B) is level with the second top surface of the first electronic device.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to arrange a thicker device between two thinner devices as taught by Cho so that the stiffeners do not add height to the package. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 25,
Huang in view of Cho makes obvious the package structure of claim 24,
wherein a lateral surface of the heat dissipation structure is substantially coplanar with a lateral surface of the base substrate (outsides surfaces are coplanar, shown in figure 7A), and wherein a third top surface of the second electronic device (130b) is lower than the second top surface of the first electronic device.
As for claim 26,
Huang in view of Cho makes obvious the package structure of claim 24, wherein the base substrate includes a circuit layer electrically connected to the redistribution structure through a plurality of solder materials. ((54), RLDs inherently have circuit wiring to transmit the signals between surfaces, although none are shown) and
the adhesive material horizontally overlaps the circuit layer and the plurality of solder materials (shown in figure), and
wherein a third top surface of the second electronic device is level with the first top surface of the first electronic device. (shown in Cho figure 10).
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights