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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1, Species A and F, claims 1-2, 7-11, 15-16 and 21-31 in the reply filed on July 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3-6, 12-14 and 17-20 have been canceled.
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.
(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, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 15-16, 23-25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sathe et al. (US 2009/0152738 A1; hereafter Sathe).
Regarding claim 1, Sathe teaches a microelectronic assembly (see e.g., an assembly 100 including an integrated circuit (IC) package 105 disposed on a circuit board 150, Figures 1A, 1B, 4), comprising:
a substrate having a first surface and an opposing second surface (see e.g., substrate 120 with a first side 122 and an opposing side 124, Para [0011], Figure 1B);
a die coupled to the second surface of the substrate by an interconnect (see e.g., integrated circuit die 110 disposed on a first side 122 of the substrate 120 and electrically coupled with the surface of the substrate 120 by number of interconnects 115, Paras [0012], [0015], Figure 1B); and a stiffener attached to the first surface of the substrate (see e.g., stiffening element 190 attached to the bottom side 124 of the substrate 120, Para [0020], Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 2, Sathe, as referred in claim 1, further teaches
wherein the stiffener is along a portion of a perimeter of the substrate (see e.g., stiffening element 490 disposed on the bottom side of the substrate comprising two sections 495a and 495b. Each section 495a, 495b extends around a portion of the substrate's perimeter, and gaps 497a, 497b exist between opposing ends of the stiffener sections 495a, 495b, Para [0026], Figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Sathe teaches a microelectronic assembly (see e.g., an assembly 100 including an integrated circuit (IC) package 105 disposed on a circuit board 150, Figures 1A, 1B, 4), comprising:
a package substrate having a first surface and an opposing second surface (see e.g., substrate 120 having a first side 122 and an opposing side 124. Substrate 120 may comprise any suitable type of substrate capable of providing electrical communications between the IC die 110 and the underlying circuit board 150. The substrate 120 may also provide structural support for the die 110. The substrate 120 may comprise a multi-layer substrate--including alternating layers of a dielectric material and metal--built-up around a core layer or a core-less multi-layer substrate, Paras [0013], [0014], Figures 1A and 1B);
a die coupled to the second surface of the package substrate; and (see e.g., integrated circuit die 110 disposed on a first side 122 of the substrate 120 and electrically coupled with the surface of the substrate 120 by number of interconnects 115, Paras [0012], [0015], Figure 1B)
a plurality of elements attached to the first surface of the package substrate configured to mitigate warpage of the die (see e.g., a stiffening element 490 disposed between the substrate 120 and the circuit board 150, and this stiffener 490 comprises two sections 495a, 495b. Each section 495a, 495b extends around a portion of the substrate's perimeter, and gaps 497a, 497b exist between opposing ends of the stiffener sections 495a, 495b. The stiffener elements are configured to mitigate the package’s susceptibility to warpage, such as warpage resulting from mismatches in the coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE's) between the various components of assembly 100, Paras [0020], [0026], Figures 1B and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Sathe, as referred in claim 9, further teaches
wherein a material of the plurality of elements includes silicon, glass, a metal, an amorphous metal alloy, or a ceramic (see e.g., the stiffener 190 comprises a metal, such as copper, aluminum, stainless steel, or other suitable metal. Other suitable materials may include plastics and composite materials, Para [0023]).
Regarding claim 15, Sathe, as referred in claim 9, further teaches
wherein the plurality of elements are not within a footprint of the die (see e.g., the stiffener elements 495a and 495b as shown in Figure 4 are not within the footprint of the die 110).
Regarding claim 16, Sathe, as referred in claim 9, further teaches
further comprising:
a circuit board electrically coupled to the first surface of the package substrate (see e.g., a circuit board 150 disposed on the bottom side 124 of substrate 120, Para [0011], Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 23, Sathe, as referred in claim 9, further teaches
wherein the plurality of elements is along a portion of a perimeter of the substrate (see e.g., stiffening element 490 disposed on the bottom side of the substrate comprising two sections 495a and 495b. Each section 495a, 495b extends around a portion of the substrate's perimeter, and gaps 497a, 497b exist between opposing ends of the stiffener sections 495a, 495b, Para [0026], Figure 4).
Regarding claim 24, Sathe teaches a computing device (see e.g., an assembly 100 including an integrated circuit (IC) package 105 disposed on a circuit board 150, Figures 1A, 1B, 4), comprising:
a circuit board; and (see e.g., circuit board 150, Para [0011], Figures 1A-1B)
an integrated circuit (IC) package (see e.g., the assembly 100 includes an IC package 105 disposed on and electrically coupled with the circuit board 150, Para [0011], Figures 1A-1B), comprising:
a substrate having a first surface and an opposing second surface (see e.g., the IC package includes a substrate 120 with a first side 122 and an opposing side 124, Para [0011], Figure 1B the first surface of the substrate coupled to the circuit board (see e.g., circuit board 150 coupled to the bottom side 124 of the substrate 120, Para [0014], Figure 1B);
a die coupled to the second surface of the substrate; and (see e.g., integrated circuit die 110 disposed on a first side 122 of the substrate 120 and electrically coupled with the surface of the substrate 120 by number of interconnects 115, Paras [0012], [0015], Figure 1B)
a stiffener attached to the first surface of the substrate (see e.g., stiffening element 190 attached to the bottom side 124 of the substrate 120, Para [0020], Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 25, Sathe, as referred in claim 24, further teaches
wherein the stiffener is along a perimeter of the substrate (see e.g., as shown in Figure 1A the stiffening element 190 is along a perimeter of the substrate 120).
Regarding claim 28, Sathe, as referred in claim 24, further teaches
wherein the die is selected from the group consisting of a central processing unit, a platform controller hub, a memory die, a field programmable gate array silicon die, and graphic processing unit (see e.g., The IC die 110 may comprise any suitable processing system, such as a microprocessor, a network processor, a graphics processor, a wireless communications device, a chipset, etc., as well as any combination of these and other systems or devices, Para [0012], Figures 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 29, Sathe, as referred in claim 24,
wherein the computing device is included in a server device (see e.g., the assembly 100 may comprise (or form part of) a hand-held computing device, a mobile computing device, a wireless communications device, a laptop computer, a desk-top computer, a server, etc.).
Regarding claim 30, Sathe, as referred in claim 24,
wherein the computing device is included in a portable device see e.g., the assembly 100 may comprise (or form part of) a hand-held computing device, a mobile computing device, a wireless communications device, a laptop computer, a desk-top computer, a server, etc.).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathe et al. (US 2009/0152738 A1; hereafter Sathe) in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0277492 A1; hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 7, Sathe, as referred in claim 1, does not explicitly teach
“wherein a thickness of the stiffener is equal to between 20% and 80% of a thickness of the interconnect”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Li teaches
wherein a thickness of the stiffener is equal to between 20% and 80% of a thickness of the interconnect (see e.g., a thickness of the stiffener 202 can be selected based on the structure of the package 100 to achieve a desired warpage control for the package 100. A standard 9 mil solder ball can have a height of approximately 170 μm post reflow. This ball height can be sufficient to accommodate a combination of the stiffener 202 and the adhesive 204 having a combined thickness of approximately 100 μm, Para [0035], Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively to implement Li’s teachings of wherein a thickness of the stiffener is equal to between 20% and 80% of a thickness of the interconnect in the device of Sathe in order optimize thickness of the stiffener based on the structure of the package to achieve a desired warpage control for the package.
Claims 8, 22, 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathe et al. (US 2009/0152738 A1; hereafter Sathe).
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Sathe, as referred in claims 1 and 24, does not explicitly teach
“wherein a total volume of the stiffener is between 50 percent and 110 percent of a total volume of the die”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
However, as shown in Seth’s Figure 1A, the stiffener 190 is disposed to surround the chip, positioned proximate to the periphery of the substrate, width being less than the width of the die 110 and the thickness of the stiffener being selected in accordance with the desired height of the interconnects. Based on this, the volume of the stiffener 190 can be chosen to be neither significantly larger or smaller than the volume of die 110.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the stiffener volume in order achieve a desired warpage control for the package.
Regarding claim 22, Sathe, as referred in claim 1, does not explicitly teach
“wherein an area of the substrate is between 30 millimeters by 30 millimeters and 150 millimeters by 150 millimeters”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Sathe, as an example teaches the substrate with dimensions 14mm by 13mm for a die having dimensions 8mm by 3mm. However, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the dimensions of the substrate can vary depending upon the components mounted on the substrate, number of metal layers, core material and desired mechanical properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize substrate size as per device requirements.
Regarding claim 31, Sathe, as referred in claim 24,
wherein the computing device is included in a wearable device see e.g., the assembly 100 may comprise (or form part of) a hand-held computing device, a mobile computing device, a wireless communications device, a laptop computer, a desk-top computer, a server, etc.).
A mobile computing device with wireless communication can be considered a wearable device if it is designed to be worn on the body like smart watch, smart glasses, fitness tracker etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the computing device in a wearable device as these are quite common.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathe et al. (US 2009/0152738 A1; hereafter Sathe) in view of Tanner (US 4,389,262).
Regarding claim 11, Sathe, as referred in claim 10, does not explicitly teach
“wherein the material of the plurality of elements is an amorphous metal alloy including one or more of: titanium, zirconium, palladium, platinum, aluminum, and nickel”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Sathe teaches that the stiffener maybe made of any suitable material or combination of materials. The stiffening element 190 includes metal alloys (see e.g., Paras [0021], [0023]).
In a similar field of endeavor Tanner teaches nickel, aluminum based amorphous metal alloys having increased hardness that is, superior tensile strength and thermal stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have stiffener made of amorphous metals due to their high strength, elasticity and thermal stability.
Claims 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathe et al. (US 2009/0152738 A1; hereafter Sathe) in view of Sikka et al. (US 2019/0267332 A1; hereafter Sikka).
Regarding claims 21 and 27, Sathe, as referred in claims 1 and 24, does not explicitly teach
“wherein a width of the stiffener is between 5 percent and 20 percent of a length of the substrate”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
However, Sathe shows in Figure 1A the width of the stiffener being less than the length of the substrate 102.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the stiffener volume in order achieve a desired warpage control for the package.
Sathe does not explicitly teach
“a length of the stiffener is between 50 percent and 100 percent of the length of the substrate”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Sikka teaches
a length of the stiffener is between 50 percent and 100 percent of the length of the substrate (see e.g., as shown in Figures 2-4 the length of the stiffener 302 is between 50 percent and 100 percent of the length of the substrate 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Sikka’s teachings of a length of the stiffener is between 50 percent and 100 percent of the length of the substrate in the device of Sathe to optimize device performance and prevent substrate warpage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893