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Claim 25 has been withdrawn from the restriction/election, therefore the status of claim 25 should change to -Withdrawn-Currently Amended-.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the horizontal direction” in line 7 should change to “the first direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe et al. (US 2008/0029884) in view of Camacho et al. (US 2010/0320583, as recited in previous Office Action).
As for claims 1 and 13, Grafe et al. disclose in Fig. 1 and the related text an integrated circuit (IC) package, comprising:
a package substrate 3;
an interposer 2 that extends continuously in a horizontal/first direction;
a first die 11 electrically coupled to the package substrate through one or more interconnect bumps 12 located directly under the first die (Fig. 1);
a second die 13 between the first die 11 and the interposer 2, the second die 13 adjacent to the interposer 2 in a vertical direction orthogonal to the horizontal direction, the second die 13 comprising a top (lower) side and a bottom (upper) side opposite the top side (Fig. 1); wherein:
a first (middle) portion of the bottom side of the second die 13 overlaps and is directly coupled to at least a portion of the first die 12 (fig. 1); and
a second (outer) portion of the bottom side of the second die 13 does not overlap the first die 12;
one or more second wires 14 coupled to the second portion of the bottom side of the second die 13 and the interposer 2 (Fig. 1).
Grafe et al. do not disclose one or more metal pillars coupled to the interposer and the package substrate and each configured to electrically couple a second wire among the one or more second wires to the package substrate; each of the one or more metal pillars comprising a single metal structure directly coupled to the interposer and directly coupled to the package substrate, wherein the first die is electrically coupled through the package substrate to at least one metal pillar among the one or more metal pillars, to electrically couple the first die to the second die. .
Camacho et al. teach in Fig. 3 and the related text one or more metal pillars 106 ([0040] and [0051]) coupled to the interposer 104 and the package substrate 302 and each configured to electrically couple a second wire 130 among the one or more second wires to the package substrate 104; each of the one or more metal pillars 106 comprising a single metal structure directly coupled to the interposer 104 and directly coupled to the package substrate 302 (Fig. 3), wherein the first die 332 is electrically coupled through the package substrate 104 to at least one metal pillar 106 among the one or more metal pillars, to electrically couple the first die 332 to the second die (Fig. 3).
Grafe et al. and Camacho et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Grafe et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grafe et al. to include the limitations as taught by Camacho et al., in order to provide both electrical connectivity and structural support (Camacho et al. [0046]).
As for claim 2, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 1, wherein:the first die comprises a first (upper) side adjacent to the package substrate 3 and electrically coupled to the package substrate 3 and a second (lower) side on an opposite side of the first side (Fig. 1); and the top (lower) side of the second die 13 is adjacent to the interposer 2 in the vertical direction, the top (lower) side being an inactive side, and the bottom (upper) side of the second die 13 is an active side (Fig. 1).
As for claim 3, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 2, wherein the one or more second wires 14 are coupled to a side of the interposer 2 adjacent to the second die 13 (Fig. 1).
As for claim 5, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more second wires 14 comprises a concave bent section that extends from the second die below the second die 13 towards the package substrate 3 and that turns upward towards the interposer 2 (Fig. 1).
As for claim 6, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more second wires 14 comprises a concave bent section that turns upward towards the interposer 2 (Fig. 1).
As for claim 7, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 2, wherein at least a portion of the first portion of the bottom side of the second die 13 is bonded to at least a portion of the second side of the first die 11 (Fig. 1).
As for claim 8, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 1, wherein the second die 13 is located over the first die 11 in the vertical direction in a stacked arrangement (Fig. 1).
As for claim 9, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 7, further comprising a compression bond between the first portion of the bottom side of the second die 13 and the portion of the second side of the first die 11.
The recited limitation “a compression bond” is drawn to a process by which the product is made. Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Because the product by process does not change the end product, Applicant’s claimed invention does not distinguish over prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
As for claim 12, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 1, further comprising one or more first wires 14 electrically coupled to the first die 11 and electrically coupled to the package substrate 3 (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe et al. (US 2008/0029884) in view of Camacho et al. (US 2010/0320583) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2009/0166835).
As for claim 10 and 24, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 7, further comprising a molding material 19 coupling the first portion of the bottom (upper) side of the second die 13 to the portion of the second side of the first die 11 (Fig. 1).
Grafe et al. do not disclose the molding material is epoxy and The IC package of claim 1 integrated into a device selected from the group consisting of: a set top box; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a fixed location data unit; a mobile location data unit; a global positioning system (GPS) device; a mobile phone; a cellular phone; a smart phone; a session initiation protocol (SIP) phone; a tablet; a phablet; a server; a computer; a portable computer; a mobile computing device; a wearable computing device; a desktop computer; a personal digital assistant (PDA); a monitor; a computer monitor; a television; a tuner; a radio; a satellite radio; a music player; a digital music player; a portable music player; a digital video player; a video player; a digital video disc (DVD) player; a portable digital video player; an automobile; a vehicle component; avionics systems; a drone; and a multicopter.
Yang et al. teach a molding compound comprise epoxy [0027]; and the IC package integrated into a device selected from the group consisting of: a set top box; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a fixed location data unit; a mobile location data unit; a global positioning system (GPS) device; a mobile phone; a cellular phone; a smart phone; a session initiation protocol (SIP) phone; a tablet; a phablet; a server; a computer; a portable computer; a mobile computing device; a wearable computing device; a desktop computer; a personal digital assistant (PDA); a monitor; a computer monitor; a television; a tuner; a radio; a satellite radio; a music player; a digital music player; a portable music player; a digital video player; a video player; a digital video disc (DVD) player; a portable digital video player; an automobile; a vehicle component; avionics systems; a drone; and a multicopter [0002].
Grafe et al., Camacho and Yang et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the combined device because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combined device to include the limitations as taught by Yang et al., in order to provide suitable material and provide applications for the IC devices.
Claim(s) 38-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe et al. in view of Camacho et al. and Lim et al. (US 2019/0103357, as disclosed in previous Office action).
As for claims 38 and 42, Grafe et al. disclose in Fig. 1 and the related text an integrated circuit (IC) package, comprising:
a package substrate 3;
an interposer 2 that extends continuously in a first direction;
a first die 11 electrically coupled to the package substrate through one or more interconnect bumps 12 located directly under the first die (Fig. 1);
a second die 13 between the first die 11 and the interposer 2, the second die 13 adjacent to the interposer 2 in a vertical direction orthogonal to the horizontal direction, the second die 13 comprising a top (lower) side and a bottom (upper) side opposite the top side (Fig. 1); wherein:
a first (middle) portion of the bottom side of the second die 13 overlaps and is directly coupled to at least a portion of the first die 12 (fig. 1); and
a second (outer) portion of the bottom side of the second die 13 does not overlap the first die 12;
one or more second wires 14 coupled to the second portion of the bottom side of the second die 13 and the interposer 2 (Fig. 1).
Grafe et al. do not disclose a second portion of the first die does not overlap the second die; one or more metal pillars coupled to the interposer and the package substrate and each configured to electrically couple a second wire among the one or more second wires to the package substrate; each of the one or more metal pillars comprising a single metal structure directly coupled to the interposer and directly coupled to the package substrate, wherein the first die is electrically coupled through the package substrate to at least one metal pillar among the one or more metal pillars, to electrically couple the first die to the second die.
Lim et al. teach in Fig. 1d and the related text a second (right/left) portion of a first die 124/104d does not overlap the second die 104d/104c.
Camacho et al. teach in Fig. 3 and the related text one or more metal pillars 106 ([0040] and [0051]) coupled to the interposer 104 and the package substrate 302 and each configured to electrically couple a second wire 130 among the one or more second wires to the package substrate 104; each of the one or more metal pillars 106 comprising a single metal structure directly coupled to the interposer 104 and directly coupled to the package substrate 302 (Fig. 3), wherein the first die 332 is electrically coupled through the package substrate 104 to at least one metal pillar 106 among the one or more metal pillars, to electrically couple the first die 332 to the second die (Fig. 3).
Grafe et al., Lim et al. and Camacho et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Grafe et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Grafe et al. to include the limitations as taught by Lim et al. and Camacho et al., in order to provide both electrical connectivity and structural support (Camacho et al. [0046]).
As for claim 39, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 38, wherein: the first die 11 comprises a first (upper) side adjacent to the package substrate 3 and electrically coupled to the package substrate 3 and a second (lower) side on an opposite side of the first side (Fig. 3).
As for claim 40, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 38, wherein: the bottom (upper) side of the second die 13 is an active side of the second die 13 (Fig. 3).
As for claim 41, Grafe et al. disclose the IC package of claim 38, further comprising one or more first wires 14 electrically coupled to the first die 11 and electrically coupled to the package substrate 3 (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm).
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 5712721670. 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.
/TRANG Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights