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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment to claim 8 "extending from a first end surface to a second end surface opposite the first end surface," the term second end surface is not mentioned in the specifications. Additionally, "wherein the second end surface and a surface of at least one of the fourth conductive contacts are coplanar," mentions the second end surface which is not included in the specification.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment to claim 15 " extending from a first end surface to a second end surface opposite the first end surface," the term second end surface is not mentioned in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (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 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, 2, 4, 5, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koduri; US 11,887,906 B2; 11/11/2021 in view of Mallik et al.; US 2021/0035881 A1; 08/2019.
Claim 1: Koduri discloses an integrated circuit (IC) package comprising: a first IC die ( Fig. 7A #710 ) comprising one or more first conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A #129 ) and one or more second conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A contacts on top of #710 ) at a first side of the first IC die ( Fig. 7A top of #710 ); a second IC die ( Fig. 7A #720 ) coupled to the first IC die ( Fig. 7A #710 ), the second IC die comprising a second side ( Fig. 7A bottom of #720 ), a third side opposite the second side ( Fig. 7A top of #720 ), a sidewall extending between the second and third sides ( Fig. 7A sides of #720 ), and third conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A contacts between #720 and #710 ) at the second side ( Fig. 7A bottom of #720) in direct contact with respective ones of the first conductive contacts ( as shown in Fig. 7A ).
Koduri does not appear to disclose a body comprising a mold compound, the body contacting the sidewall of the second IC die and the first side of the first IC die; one or more interconnect structures extending through the body, each of the interconnect structures comprising a first end surface and a second end surface opposite the first end surface, the first end surface contacting and coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts; and fourth conductive contacts at the third side of the second IC die, wherein the second end surface and a surface of at least one of the fourth conductive contacts are coplanar.
However, Mallik teaches a body comprising a mold compound ( Fig. 2B a mold material #250), the body contacting the sidewall of the second IC die ( [0025] is adjacent to a sidewall of chip substrate #223 ) and the first side of the first IC die ( [0025] covers IC chips #221 ); one or more interconnect structures ( [0024] One or more pillars or other metallization features suitable for contacting RDL interconnects #235A, #235B may protrude from active region #225 ) extending through the body ( [0025] Mold material #250 is also adjacent to solder features #235A ), each of the interconnect structures ( [0021] RDL structure #210 includes one or more levels of metallization #206 embedded within dielectric materials #205 ) comprising a first end surface ( Fig. 2A top of #210 ) and a second end surface ( Fig. 2A bottom of #210 ) opposite the first end surface ( as shown in Fig. 2A) , the first end surface contacting and coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts ( Fig. 2B #235A ); and fourth conductive contacts ( Fig. 5 #285 ) at the third side of the second IC die ( see Fig. 5), wherein the second end surface ( Fig. 2A bottom of #210 ) and a surface of at least one of the fourth conductive contacts ( Fig. 5 #285 ) are coplanar ( Fig. 5 #285 is coplanar with contacts for #221 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri to implement a body comprising a mold compound, the body contacting the sidewall of the second IC die and the first side of the first IC die; one or more interconnect structures extending through the body, each of the interconnect structures comprising a first end surface and a second end surface opposite the first end surface, the first end surface contacting and coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts; and fourth conductive contacts at the third side of the second IC die, wherein the second end surface and a surface of at least one of the fourth conductive contacts are coplanar because this ensures reliable and consistent electrical connections for subsequent assembly and soldering processes.
Claim 2: Koduri and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 1 (as discussed above).
Koduri teaches the one or more interconnect structures are conductive pillars ( Col 4. Lines 40 – 43 The die bonding features can comprise an anisotropic electrically conductive paste, solder bumps, copper pillars, an electrically conductive epoxy, or a metal polymer composite ).
Claim 4: Koduri and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 1 (as discussed above).
Koduri does not appear to disclose the mold compound comprises an organic material.
However, Mallik teaches the mold compound ( Fig. 2B #250 ) comprises an organic material ( [0025] mold material #250 comprises a cured resin or polymer comprising epoxy and/or silicon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri to implement the mold compound comprises an organic material because organic resins form the essential polymer matrix.
Claim 5: Koduri and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Koduri does not appear to disclose the second IC die further comprises a through-silicon via connecting one of the fourth conductive contacts with a metal interconnect layer of the second IC die.
However, Mallik teaches the second IC die ( bottom side IC Fig. 2A shown in Fig. 2B ) further comprises a through-silicon via ( [0022] a plurality of IC chips is attached to the RDL interconnect features ) connecting one of the fourth conductive contacts ( Fig. 5 #285 ) with a metal interconnect layer ( Fig. 2B #210 ) of the second IC die ( bottom side IC Fig. 2A shown in Fig. 2B ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri to implement the second IC die further comprises a through-silicon via connecting one of the fourth conductive contacts with a metal interconnect layer of the second IC die because this enables a 3D integrated circuit structure.
Claim 15: Koduri discloses a system comprising: a power supply ( Fig. 14 fan out power WCSP #1400 ); and an integrated circuit (IC) package ( Fig. 14 #125 ) coupled to the power supply ( Fig. 14 #1400 ), comprising: a first IC die ( Fig. 14 #125 ) comprising one or more first conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A #129 ) and one or more second conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A contacts on top of #710 ) at a first side of the first IC die ( Fig. 7A #710 ); a second IC die ( Fig. 7A #720 ) coupled to the first IC die ( Fig. 7A #710 ), the second IC die ( Fig. 7A #720 ) comprising a second side ( Fig. 7A bottom of #720 ), a third side opposite the second side ( Fig. 7A top of #720 ), a sidewall extending between the second and third sides ( Fig. 7A sides of #720 ), and third conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A contacts between #720 and #710 ) at the second side (Fig. 7A bottom of #720) in direct contact with respective ones of the first conductive contacts ( as shown in Fig. 7A);
Koduri does not appear to disclose a body comprising a mold compound, the body contacting the sidewall of the second IC die and the first side of the first IC die; one or more interconnect structures extending through the body, each of the interconnect structures extending from a first end surface to a second end surface opposite the first end surface, the first end surface contacting and coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts, wherein each of the interconnect structures is spaced apart from one of the sidewalls; and fourth conductive contacts at the third side of the second IC die.
However, Mallik teaches a body comprising a mold compound ( Fig. 2B a mold material #250), the body contacting the sidewall of the second IC die ( [0025] is adjacent to a sidewall of chip substrate #223 ) and the first side of the first IC die ( [0025] covers IC chips #221 ); one or more interconnect structures ( [0024] One or more pillars or other metallization features suitable for contacting RDL interconnects #235A, #235B may protrude from active region #225 ) extending through the body ( [0025] Mold material #250 is also adjacent to solder features #235A ), each of the interconnect structures ( [0021] RDL structure #210 includes one or more levels of metallization #206 embedded within dielectric materials #205 ) extending from a first end surface ( left side of #223 ) to a second end surface ( right side of #223 ) opposite the first end surface ( as shown in Fig. 2B ), the first end surface ( as shown in Fig. 2B ) contacting and coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts ( #235B ), wherein each of the interconnect structures is spaced apart from one of the sidewalls; and fourth conductive contacts ( Fig. 5 #285 ) at the third side ( Fig. 5 bottom of #205 ) of the second IC die ( Fig. 5 #201).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri to implement a body comprising a mold compound, the body contacting the sidewall of the second IC die and the first side of the first IC die; one or more interconnect structures extending through the body, each of the interconnect structures coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts, wherein the first conductive contacts are in a region of the first side in contact with the second IC die, and the second conductive contacts are outside of the region; and fourth conductive contacts at the third side of the second IC die because the mold compound’s primary function is to protect the delicate internal components and the configuration of the contacts is designed to enable high-speed, direct die-to-die communication inside the region and also facilitate routing signals and power outside of the region.
Claim 16: Koduri and Mallik disclose the system of claim 15 (as discussed above).
Koduri does not appear to disclose the first IC die comprises memory circuitry to store data; and the second IC die comprises logic circuity to execute instructions on the data.
However, Mallik teaches the first IC die comprises memory circuitry to store data ( [0023] IC chip #221 may be a first of any of a wireless radio circuit, microprocessor circuit, electronic memory circuit ); and the second IC die comprises logic circuity to execute instructions on the data ( [0040] processor #604 includes a package having a multi-chip unit ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri to implement the first IC die comprises memory circuitry to store data; and the second IC die comprises logic circuity to execute instructions on the data because this approach provides significant advantages in performance, power efficiency, manufacturing optimization, and form factor.
Claim 17: Koduri and Mallik disclose the system of claim 15 ( as discussed above).
Koduri does not appear to disclose the mold compound comprises an organic material.
However, Mallik teaches the mold compound ( Fig. 2B #250 ) comprises an organic material ( [0025] mold material #250 comprises a cured resin or polymer comprising epoxy and/or silicon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri to implement the mold compound comprises an organic material because it offers a cost-effective, durable, and highly processable encapsulation solution that protects the delicate chip components from the environment.
Claim 18: Koduri and Mallik disclose the system of claim 15 ( as discussed above).
Koduri teaches the one or more interconnect structures are comprised of copper ( Col 4. Lines 40 – 43 The die bonding features can comprise an anisotropic electrically conductive paste, solder bumps, copper pillars, an electrically conductive epoxy, or a metal polymer composite ).
Claims 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koduri; US 11,887,906 B2; 11/11/2021 in view of Xie et al.; US 2015/0279742 A1; 04/2014
Claim 8: Koduri discloses an integrated circuit (IC) package comprising: a first IC die ( Fig. 7A #710 ) comprising one or more first conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A #129 ) and one or more second conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A contacts on top of #710 ) at a first side of the first IC die ( Fig. 7A top of #710 ); a second IC die ( Fig. 7A #720 ) coupled to the first IC die ( Fig. 7A #710 ), the second IC die comprising a second side ( Fig. 7A bottom of #720 ), a third side opposite the second side ( Fig. 7A top of #720 ), sidewalls ( Fig. 7A sides of #720 ) extending between the second ( Fig. 7A bottom of #720 ) and third sides ( Fig. 7A top of #720 ), and third conductive contacts ( Fig. 7A contacts between #720 and #710 ) at the second side ( Fig. 7A bottom of #720) in direct contact with respective ones of the first conductive contacts ( as shown in Fig. 7A ).
Koduri does not appear to disclose one or more interconnect structures extending through a body, each of the interconnect structures extending from a first end surface to a second end surface opposite the first end surface, the first end surface contacting and coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts, wherein each of the interconnect structures is spaced apart from one of the sidewalls; and fourth conductive contacts at the third side of the second IC die, wherein the second end surface and a surface of at least one of the fourth conductive contacts are coplanar.
However, Xie teaches one or more interconnect structures extending through a body ( Fig. 2G: gate registration structure 120 ), each of the interconnect structures extending from a first end surface ( Fig. 2G: end surface 122C on left side) to a second end surface ( Fig. 2G: end surface 122C on right side ) opposite the first end surface ( as shown in Fig. 2G ), the first end surface contacting and coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts ( [0019] a first end surface of the first sacrificial gate structure abuts and engages a first side surface of the gate registration structure ), wherein each of the interconnect structures ( Fig. 2G 120 ) is spaced apart from one of the sidewalls ( Fig. 2H sidewall spacers 126 ); and fourth conductive contacts at the third side of the second IC die ( [0019] a second end surface of the second sacrificial gate structure abuts and engages a second, opposite side surface of the gate registration structure ), wherein the second end surface ( Fig. 2G: 122c on right side ) and a surface of at least one of the fourth conductive contacts ( [0038] the end surface 122C of the dummy gate electrode 122B are in contact with the gate registration structure 120 ) are coplanar ( as shown in Fig. 2H ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Xie with Koduri to implement one or more interconnect structures extending through a body, each of the interconnect structures extending from a first end surface to a second end surface opposite the first end surface, the first end surface contacting and coupled to a respective one of the second conductive contacts, wherein each of the interconnect structures is spaced apart from one of the sidewalls; and fourth conductive contacts at the third side of the second IC die, wherein the second end surface and a surface of at least one of the fourth conductive contacts are coplanar because this leads to improved 3D stacking and vertical connectivity.
Claim 11: Koduri, Xie and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 8 ( as discussed above).
Koduri teaches the one or more interconnect structures are conductive pillars ( Col 4. Lines 40 – 43 The die bonding features can comprise an anisotropic electrically conductive paste, solder bumps, copper pillars, an electrically conductive epoxy, or a metal polymer composite ).
Claim 12: Koduri, Xie, and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 8 ( as discussed above).
Neither Koduri nor Xie appear to disclose the second IC die further comprises a through-silicon via connecting one of the fourth conductive contacts with a metal interconnect layer of the second IC die.
However, Mallik teaches the second IC die ( bottom side IC Fig. 2A shown in Fig. 2B ) further comprises a through-silicon via ( [0022] a plurality of IC chips is attached to the RDL interconnect features ) connecting one of the fourth conductive contacts ( Fig. 5 #285 ) with a metal interconnect layer ( Fig. 2B #210 ) of the second IC die ( bottom side IC Fig. 2A shown in Fig. 2B ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri and Xie to implement the second IC die further comprises a through-silicon via connecting one of the fourth conductive contacts with a metal interconnect layer of the second IC die because this provides a vertical, high-speed, and power-efficient electrical pathway for signals and power between the different layers of a stacked IC circuit.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koduri; US 11,887,906 B2; 11/11/2021 in view of Xie et al.; US 2015/0279742 A1; 04/2014 as it relates to claim 8 and further in view of Mallik et al.; US 2021/0035881 A1; 08/2019.
Claim 9: Koduri and Xie disclose the IC package of claim 8 ( as discussed above).
Neither Koduri nor Xie appear to disclose the body comprises a mold compound contacting the sidewall of the second IC die and the first side of the first IC die.
However, Mallik teaches the body comprises a mold compound ( Fig. 2B a mold material #250) contacting the sidewall of the second IC die ( [0025] is adjacent to a sidewall of chip substrate #223 ) and the first side of the first IC die ( [0025] covers IC chips #221 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri and Xie to implement the body comprises a mold compound contacting the sidewall of the second IC die and the first side of the first IC die because it provides protection from environmental factors and improves mechanical integrity.
Claim 10: Koduri, Xie, and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 9 ( as discussed above).
Neither Koduri nor Xie appear to disclose the mold compound comprises an organic material.
However, Mallik teaches the mold compound ( Fig. 2B #250 ) comprises an organic material ( [0025] mold material #250 comprises a cured resin or polymer comprising epoxy and/or silicon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Mallik with Koduri and Xie to implement the mold compound comprises an organic material because of the exceptional balance of performance, low cost, and manufacturing advantages.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallik et al.; US 2021/0035881 A1; 08/2019 in view Koduri; US 11,887,906 B2; 11/11/2021 as it relates to claim 1 and further in view of Chen et al.; US 2018/0005940 A1; 06/2016.
Claim 6: Koduri and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Neither Koduri nor Mallik appear to disclose a thickness of the second IC die is greater than 40 microns.
However, Chen teaches a thickness of the second IC die is greater than 40 microns (par. [0040] a possible thickness of the substrate (102’) of the second die (102+102A) (see fig. 3 of up to 100 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Chen with Koduri and Mallik to implement the second IC die with a thickness greater than 40 microns because it enables better heat dissipation.
Claim 7: Koduri and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Neither Koduri nor Mallik appear to disclose a distance between the first side of the first IC die and the second end surface is greater than 90 microns.
However, Chen teaches a distance between the first side of the first IC die and the second end surface is greater than 90 microns ( [0025] The semiconductor structure 102 and the bonding dielectric 102A together has a total thickness of H’. Through dielectric vias (#105) possesses a height H, measured from one end of the through dielectric vias (#105) connecting with the metallization (#103) to the bonding metallization (#101A). The height H is greater than the thickness H’. par. [0040] a possible thickness of the substrate (102’) of the second die (102+102A) (see fig. 3 of up to 100 microns.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Chen with Koduri and Mallik to implement a distance between the first side of the first IC die and the second end surface greater than 90 microns because this enhances reliability and enables fine-pitch designs.
Claim 13: Koduri and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 8 ( as discussed above).
Neither Koduri nor Mallik appear to disclose a thickness of the second IC die is greater than 40 microns.
However, Chen teaches a thickness of the second IC die is greater than 40 microns (par. [0040] a possible thickness of the substrate (102’) of the second die (102+102A) (see fig. 3 of up to 100 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Chen with Koduri and Mallik to implement a thickness of the second IC die is greater than 40 microns because it enables better heat dissipation.
Claim 14: Koduri and Mallik disclose the IC package of claim 8 ( as discussed above).
Koduri discloses each of the one or more interconnect structures comprises a first end surface ( Fig. 7A surface above #129 ) contacting the second conductive contact ( Fig. 7A contacts between #710 and #720 ) with which the interconnect structure is coupled and a second end surface ( Fig. 7A top of #710 ) opposite the first end surface ( Fig. 7A bottom of #710 ).
Neither Koduri nor Mallik appear to disclose a distance between the first side of the first IC die and the second end surface is greater than 90 microns.
However, Chen teaches a distance between the first side of the first IC die and the second end surface is greater than 90 microns ( [0025] The semiconductor structure 102 and the bonding dielectric 102A together has a total thickness of H’. Through dielectric vias (#105) possesses a height H, measured from one end of the through dielectric vias (#105) connecting with the metallization (#103) to the bonding metallization (#101A). The height H is greater than the thickness H’. par. [0040] a possible thickness of the substrate (102’) of the second die (102+102A) (see fig. 3 of up to 100 microns.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Chen with Koduri and Mallik to implement a distance between the first side of the first IC die and the second end surface greater than 90 microns because this enhances reliability and enables fine-pitch designs.
Claim 20: Koduri and Mallik disclose the system of claim 15 ( as discussed above).
Neither Koduri nor Mallik appear to disclose a thickness of the second IC die is greater than 40 microns.
However, Chen teaches a thickness of the second IC die is greater than 40 microns (par. [0040] a possible thickness of the substrate (102’) of the second die (102+102A) (see fig. 3 of up to 100 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Chen et al. with Mallik to create the second IC die with a thickness greater than 40 microns to enable better heat dissipation.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 – 7 of remarks filed 02/27/26, with respect to Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 12/02/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 - 7, filed 02/27/26, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 12/02/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 using Koduri and Mallik.
The first argument is that in Fig. 7A, there are contacts on the top and bottom of #710. The contacts on the top of #710 are not specifically numbered so the same number #129 is utilized in the rejection for the first side of the IC die which is the top of #710.
The second argument is that the use of Mallik is not appropriate for the rejection. 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).
In the third argument applicant then argues that Koduri teaches away from the language of claim by citing Col. 1 lines 59 to Col. 2 line 3 which is not listed in the Claim 1 rejection. However, "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
In the fourth argument, applicant then argues that Mallik does not properly map “one or more interconnect structures,” in the rejection one or more interconnect structures ( [0024] One or more pillars or other metallization features suitable for contacting RDL interconnects #235A, #235B may protrude from active region #225 ) extending through the body ( [0025] Mold material #250 is also adjacent to solder features #235A ), each of the interconnect structures ( [0021] RDL structure #210 includes one or more levels of metallization #206 embedded within dielectric materials #205 ) refers to paragraphs [0024] and [0021]. The citations refer to the RDL interconnects.
In the fifth argument, applicant argues that #221 is used for the first and second IC die but in the rejection it states the body contacting the sidewall of the second IC die ( [0025] is adjacent to a sidewall of chip substrate #223 ) and the first side of the first IC die ( [0025] covers IC chips #221 ). The component is chip #223 and there are two die #221 and #222. The second die is referred to later on in Claim 1 and fourth conductive contacts ( Fig. 5 #285 ) at the third side of the second IC die ( see Fig. 5) but the second IC die is not assigned to #221 as stated in the argument.
Arguments for Claim 8, the first argument is that in Fig. 7A, there are contacts on the top and bottom of #710. The contacts on the top of #710 are not specifically numbered so the same number #129 is utilized in the rejection for the first side of the IC die which is the top of #710.
The second argument is that the use of Mallik is not appropriate for the rejection. 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).
Arguments for Claim 9, is that Mallik and Koduri should not be combined for the 103 rejection. However, "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures" ).
Arguments for Claim 15, the first argument is that in Fig. 7A, there are contacts on the top and bottom of #710. The contacts on the top of #710 are not specifically numbered so the same number #129 is utilized in the rejection for the first side of the IC die which is the top of #710.
The second argument is that the use of Mallik is not appropriate for the rejection. 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 third argument is that Koduri teaches away from Mallik. However, "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures" ).
In the fourth argument, applicant argues that #221 is used for the first and second IC die but in the rejection it states the body contacting the sidewall of the second IC die ( [0025] is adjacent to a sidewall of chip substrate #223 ) and the first side of the first IC die ( [0025] covers IC chips #221 ). The component is chip #223 and there are two die #221 and #222. The second die is referred to later on in Claim 1 and fourth conductive contacts ( Fig. 5 #285 ) at the third side of the second IC die ( see Fig. 5) but the second IC die is not assigned to #221 as stated 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 KIMBERLY N FREY whose telephone number is (571)272-5068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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.
/K.N.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights