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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to “Claims filed on 2/11/2026”. Applicant's amendments of claim 1, 22; cancellation of claim 23 with the same reply have been entered by the Examiner. Upon entry of the amendments, claims 1-13, 22, 24-25 are pending wherein claims 1 and 22 are independent and claims 14-21 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With regards to claim 22, the currently amended limitation “wherein there are no metal structures between the second metal structure and the die” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the “metal structures” are “first metal structures as claimed” or any metal structures that could be formed in a semiconductor package. Dependent claims 23-25 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 22.
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.
Note applicable to all claims being rejected in this Office action: Examiner notes that the limitations "overlap", "layer", "portion" “substrate” “on”are being interpreted broadly in accordance with MPEP. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. The claim presently discloses a structural limitation (i.e. overlap, layer, portion, contact) that is taught by prior art of record, therefore, the limitation is considered met by the prior art of record. Additionally, Merriam Webster dictionary defines the above limitations as “to occupy the same area in part”, “one thickness lying over or under another”, “an often limited part of a whole” “underlying support” “functional word indicating close proximity” respectively. Further note the limitation “contact” is being interpreted to include "direct contact" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between) and "indirect contact" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between).
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al (US 2021/0066228 A1 hereinafter Lu).
Regarding Claim 1, Lu discloses in Fig 3: A package comprising:
a substrate (2);
a die (12) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first side of the die is coupled with the substrate (2); and
a dam (13) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first side of the dam is directly physically coupled with the substrate and the second side of the dam extends away from the substrate (See Fig 3), and wherein the dam at least partially surrounds the die (See Fig 1); and
a plurality of pillars (14 – shown in Fig 3) coupled to the substrate, wherein a top of the plurality of pillars is above a top surface of the dam (See Fig 3), wherein the top surface of the dam (13) is above the second side of the die (12) [0061], wherein the dam (13) is laterally between the plurality of pillars (14 – one on left side of dies and one on the right side of dies) and the die (12), and wherein there are no pillars between the dam (13) and the die (12) (See Fig 3) [0054, 0062, 0063].
Regarding Claim 3, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 1, wherein a distance between the first side of the dam (13) and the second side of the dam is substantially a same distance throughout a length of the dam (See Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 1, wherein the dam (13) completely surrounds the die (12) See Fig 3.
Regarding Claim 5, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 4, further including a capillary underfill (CUF) (124) on a portion of the substrate (2) surrounded by the dam (13).
Regarding Claim 6, Lu discloses in Fig 1: The package of claim 5, wherein the CUF (124) extends to one or more edges of the die (11) between the first side of the die and the second side of the die (See Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 5, further comprising one or more copper features (123) between the first side of the die and the substrate; and wherein the CUF (124) extends below the first side of the die (12) and in between the one or more copper features.
Regarding Claim 9, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 1, wherein the dam (13) is proximate to one or more edges of the die (12) between the first side of the die in the second side of the die; and further comprising: a material (114) proximate to a surface of the substrate (2), and coupled with the dam (13) and with the die (12).
Regarding Claim 10, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 9, wherein the material (114) is a selected one of a CUF or a dielectric (isolation material).
Regarding Claim 11, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 1, wherein the dam includes copper (conductive pillar) [0049].
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.
Claim(s) 22, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2021/0066228 A1 hereinafter Lu).
Regarding Claim 22, Lu discloses in Fig 3: A package comprising:
a substrate (2) having a surface;
a copper pad (25 in Fig 3) on the surface of the substrate;
a first metal structure (14), the first metal structure having a first end on the pad and a second end that that is spaced apart from the surface of the substrate (2);
a die (12) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first side of the die is on the surface of the substrate;
a second metal structure (13) between the die (12) and the first metal structure (14), the second metal structure having a first end on the surface of the substrate and a second end spaced apart from the surface of the substrate (See Fig 3), the second end of the second metal structure (13) below the second end of the first metal structure (14) and, and the second end of the second metal structure (13) above the second side of the die (12), wherein the second metal structure (13) is laterally between the first metal structure (14) and the die (12), and wherein there are no metal structures between the second metal structure and the die; and a mold compound (10) on the first and second metal structures and on the die (12). See note above for the broadest reasonable interpretation of “on”. Even though the copper pads are not specifically recited, one of ordinary skilled in the art would find it obvious that the pads formed on the substrate are made of copper [0054, 0062, 0063].
Regarding Claim 24, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 22, further comprising: a CUF layer (124 as shown in Fig 3) proximate to the surface the substrate (11), wherein the CUF layer extends from a portion of the second metal structure to a portion of the die (20). See note above for the definition of “extend”.
Regarding Claim 25, Lu discloses in Fig 3: The package of claim 22, wherein the second metal structure (13) comprises copper.
Claim(s) 2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2021/0066228 A1 hereinafter Lu) in view of Aleksov et al (US 2020/0006235 A1 hereinafter Aleksov).
Regarding Claim 2, Lu discloses: The package of claim 7.
Lu does not disclose: wherein the die and the dam are positioned within a cavity in the substrate.
However, Aleksov in a similar package discloses in Fig 3 wherein the die is positioned within a cavity (106) in the substrate (102) [0039-0040].
References Lu and Aleksov are analogous art because they both are directed to packaging of semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Lu with the specified features of Aleksov 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 of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Lu and Aleksov so that the die and the dam are positioned within a cavity in the substrate as taught by Aleksov in Lu’s device since, this provides microelectronic assemblies exhibit better power delivery and signal speed while reducing the size of the package relative to conventional approaches.
Regarding Claim 8, Lu discloses: The package of claim 7.
Lu does not disclose: wherein the CUF is a liquid flux.
However, Aleksov in a similar package discloses in [0037] that the underfill material is an epoxy flux which is a liquid as understood by one of ordinary skilled in the art.
References Lu and Aleksov are analogous art because they both are directed to packaging of semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Lu with the specified features of Aleksov 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 of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Lu and Aleksov so that the CUF is a liquid flux as taught by Aleksov in Lu’s device since, epoxy fluxes are commonly used underfill material die to their mechanical and electrical characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 12, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art of record either singularly or in combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the dam includes a dielectric material physically coupled with the one or more copper pillars” as recited in claim 12 in combination with the remaining features.
Dependent claim 13 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter based on virtue of its dependency.
The most relevant prior art references, Lu et al (US 2021/0066228 A1); Ota et al (US 2013/0270688 A1); Lin et al (US 2018/0342466 A1) substantially teach the limitations of the claim 12, with the exception of the limitations described in the preceding paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 22 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
Applicant's 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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 on 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811