DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This Office Action is in response to Amendments/Remarks filed on March 31, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0227209 A1 to Yoon et al. (“Yoon”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. -2018/0277490 A1 to Yoon et al. (“Yoon0”). As to claim 1, Yoon discloses an electronic systems package comprising: a first die (316/320) in operable communication with a first substrate (102); a second die (114) in operable communication with a second substrate (304/at 320) above the first substrate (102) and in thermal communication therewith; an encapsulant layer (128, 504) surrounding the second die (114); and at least one heat sink (506) embedded within the encapsulant layer (128, 504), and physically defining a cavity (between 322 and 506) that encloses five sides of the second die (114), the at least one heat sink (506) being in direct thermal contact with the second die (114) and even or extending out of the encapsulant layer (128, 504) surrounding the second die (114), the at least one heat sink (506) enclosing five sides of the second die (114); wherein the at least one heat sink (506) is exposed to an exterior of the electronic systems package and operable to direct heat generated from the first (316/320) and second (114) dies out from the package and away from the first (316/320) and second (114) dies (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0049-¶ 0053, ¶ 0058-¶ 0064, ¶ 0067-¶ 0069) (Notes: the recited elements are met by the recited positions and thus are operable to direct heat generated from the first and second dies out from the package and away from the first and second dies. Further, the limitation “substrate” is interpreted as a supporting element and the limitation “encapsulant layer” is interpreted as a covering layer. Lastly, the at least one heat sink is not entirely buried in the encapsulant layer to be extending out of the encapsulant layer exposed to air/environment. The proximity between the first and second dies and the at least one heat sink provides heat dissipation). Further, Yoon0 discloses the at least one heat sink (15) enclosing five sides of the second die (16) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, ¶ 0061-¶ 0065) such that the second die is well insulated from unnecessary electromagnetic waves and providing a better heat dissipation path. As to claim 2, Yoon discloses further comprising: a thermal interface material layer (322) between each of the at least one heat sinks (506) and the second substrate (at 320) (See Fig. 4, Fig. 6, ¶ 0061), where the thermal interface material in physical contact provides heat dissipation path. As to claim 4, Yoon discloses further comprising: a third die (320) in operable communication with the second substrate (304) (See Fig. 6, ¶ 0052). As to claim 6, Yoon further discloses wherein the first die (316) further comprises: a flip chip die (316) (See Fig. 6, ¶ 0051). As to claim 7, Yoon further discloses wherein the second die (114) further comprises: one of a flip chip die (114) and a wire bond die (See Fig. 6, ¶ 0038). As to claim 8, Yoon further discloses wherein the third die (320) further comprises: one of a flip chip die and a wire bond die (320) (See Fig. 6, ¶ 0051, ¶ 0052).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue “The Office’s own characterization of the prior art indicates that Yoon’s relied-upon member is a discrete shield or plate-like structure rather than a die-surrounding cavity heat sink…That is not the same as a heat sink embedded within encapsulant and physically defining a cavity that encloses five sides of the die.” This is not found persuasive because both Yoon and Yoon0 disclose the shield for EMI purposes and heat dissipation (See Yoon ¶ 0062 and Yoon0 ¶ 0064). Thus, the combination of Yoon and Yoon0 provides the five-sided cavity heat sink embedded within the encapsulant around the die.
Applicants further argue “The rejection does not identify where Yoon0 teaches that this shield is embedded within an encapsulant layer surrounding the die while also physically defining a five-sided cavity around that die and being exposed to the package exterior…(ii) physically defines a cavity that encloses five sides of that second die.” This is not found persuasive because 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). It is noted that Yoon0 clearly shows the heat sink enclosing five sides of the second die such that the cavity enclosing five sides of the second die of Yoon is taught as well. As seen in FIG. 2 of Yoon and in view of Yoon0, the heat sink or shield encloses five sides of the second die such that better EMI shield and heat dissipation are provided. Since the cavity is formed in the cross-sectional view in Yoon, the five-sided cavity heat sink embedded within the encapsulant around the die is provided.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights