GROOVED PACKAGE

DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse to the restriction requirement mailed on 4/25/25 of Group I (original device claims 1-21, through claims 3 and 7 have been canceled), in the reply filed on 6/24/25 was acknowledged in a previous office action. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn. Claim Interpretation The Office will use the following interpretations: The limitation “bridge” has not been defined in the specification or claims. There are examples such as an embedded bridge (EMIB), see para 28, silicon bridge or RDL bridge, see para 43. However, it may also be any “other bridging technology” para 28. Given the lack of definition, in light of how the term is used in the art, “bridge” will be interpreted as one or more conductive features, such as a wire, a pad, or a metallic trace, that could connect two chips. It may comprise the conductive feature(s) itself, or it may comprise other structures around the conductive feature(s), for purposes such as providing rigidity, support, further electrical connection, etc. As a non-limiting list of possible “bridges”, this includes: a pad; a wire; a metallic trace; a redistribution layer comprising several metallic traces and/or vias in several dielectric layers; a package substrate; a semiconductor chip having wiring thereon; or combinations thereof. The applicant is hereby notified that the examiner is treating claim 21 as a "product-by-process” claim. 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.” (See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and also see MPEP 2113). The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. (See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) and also see MPEP 2113). The limitation “the plurality of grooves are located based upon an arrangement of the plurality of dies within the mold material” contains the result (“based upon”) of a process (“basing”, meaning determining, the location) performed during the design of the device. There is no distinctive structural characteristic resulting from this basing other than the device having a plurality of grooves and the device having an arrangement of the plurality of dies within the mold material. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. (See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Also note the use of 102/103 rejections for product-by-process claims has been approved by the courts. (See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972), and also see MPEP 2113). 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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 10-13, 18-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0075937 A1 (“Wang”) in view of US 2011/0031603 A1 (“Su”). Wang teaches, for example: PNG media_image1.png 316 844 media_image1.png Greyscale Wang teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention: 1. A package (see e.g. Fig. 8) comprising: a first die and a second die (see e.g. two dies 34 in Fig. 8; this is created from four dies 24 and 25, see e.g. Fig. 4), the first die having a top surface (top of 34 as shown in Fig. 8) and a bottom surface (bottom of 34 as shown in Fig. 8), and the second die having a top surface (top of 34 as shown in Fig. 8)and a bottom surface (bottom of 34 as shown in Fig. 8); a mold material (“mold compound 59”, see e.g. para 35) surrounding the first die and the second die, the mold material having a first surface (top surface thereof, see e.g. Fig. 8) at a same level as the top surface of the first die and as the top surface of the second die, and the mold material having a second surface (bottom surface thereof, see e.g. Fig. 8) below the bottom surface of the first die and the bottom surface of the second die; a groove (the space within 59 occupied by 61) in the mold material, the groove extending from the first side of the mold material toward the second side of the mold material, a material (“stress relief features 61”) in the groove and laterally between the first die and the second die, the material having an outermost surface at a same level as the first side of the mold material, as the top surface of the first die, and as the top surface of the second die (see e.g. Fig. 8), and a substrate 13 coupled to the bottom surface of the first die and to the bottom surface of the second die. Wang does not explicitly teach that the material in the groove comprising the “stress relief features 61” is an electrically conductive material. Su teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Wang that the material in the groove comprising the “stress relief features 61” to comprise an electrically conductive material (see e.g. para 24, wherein a stress relief layer 178 is formed in an opening 174 within insulating materials 140, 152, and wherein 178 comprises conductive materials such as lead-based eutectic compositions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Su, including the conductive material used for stress relief, to the invention of Wang. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming Wang’s 61 out of a material that is known to effectively relieve stress (para 23) and which can be formed by known methods such as electroplating (see e.g. para 23). Furthermore, such a material could allow for the formation of other electrical contacts such as copper pillars 182, if so desired. Wang and Su together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art: 2. The package of claim 1, wherein the first die and the second die are in a first plane, and wherein at least a portion of the groove is between the first die and the second die with respect to a second plane that is perpendicular to the first plane (see e.g. Fig. 8). 10. The package of claim 1, wherein the groove is a selected one or more of: a continuous trench or an intermittent trench (see the description of the grid of 61 in para 33). 11. The package of claim 1, wherein the first die and/or the second die are electrically coupled with one or more solder balls at a side of the package (see solder balls 33, Fig. 8, which are coupled to the dies 34 via 17, 19, 21, 15, etc.). Wang teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention: 12. A package (see e.g. Fig. 8) comprising: a plurality of dies (see e.g. two dies 34 in Fig. 8; this is created from four dies 24 and 25, see e.g. Fig. 4), each die having a top surface (top of 34 as shown in Fig. 8) and a bottom surface (bottom of 34 as shown in Fig. 8); a mold material (“mold compound 59”, see e.g. para 35) surrounding the plurality of dies, the mold material having a first surface (top surface thereof, see e.g. Fig. 8) at a same level as the top surface of the plurality of each of the plurality of dies (see Fig. 8) and the mold material having a second surface (bottom surface thereof, see e.g. Fig. 8) below the bottom surface of each of the plurality of dies (see Fig. 8); a plurality of grooves (the spaces within 59 occupied by 61s) in the mold material, each of the plurality of grooves extending from the first side of the mold material toward the second side of the mold material (see Fig. 8); wherein each of the plurality of grooves at least partially separate a first of the plurality of dies from a second of the plurality of dies (see Fig. 8), and a material (“stress relief features 61”) in each of the plurality of grooves and laterally between the first of the plurality of dies and the second of the plurality of dies (see Fig. 8), the electrically conductive material having an outermost surface at a same level as the first side of the mold material and as the top surface of each of the plurality of dies (see Fig. 8), and a substrate 13 coupled to the bottom surface of the first die and to the bottom surface of the second die. Wang does not explicitly teach that the material in the groove comprising the “stress relief features 61” is an electrically conductive material. Su teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Wang that the material in the groove comprising the “stress relief features 61” to comprise an electrically conductive material (see e.g. para 24, wherein a stress relief layer 178 is formed in an opening 174 within insulating materials 140, 152, and wherein 178 comprises conductive materials such as lead-based eutectic compositions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Su, including the conductive material used for stress relief, to the invention of Wang. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming Wang’s 61 out of a material that is known to effectively relieve stress (para 23) and which can be formed by known methods such as electroplating (see e.g. para 23). Furthermore, such a material could allow for the formation of other electrical contacts such as copper pillars 182, if so desired. Wang and Su together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art: 13. The package of claim 12, wherein the plurality of dies are in a same plane (see e.g. Fig. 8). 18. The package of claim 12, wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves are perpendicular to each other (see the description of the grid of 61 in para 33; a mesh structure as described has some grooves perpendicular to one another). 19. The package of claim 12, wherein the plurality of grooves include a first portion of the plurality of grooves is a continuous trench, and a second portion of the plurality of grooves is an intermittent trench (see the description of the grid of 61 in para 33; a mesh structure as described has portions that may be reasonably interpreted as “continuous” and portions that may be reasonably interpreted as “intermittent”). 21. The package of claim 12, wherein the plurality of grooves are located based upon an arrangement of the plurality of dies within the mold material (see e.g. Fig. 8; the grooves separate chips, instead of e.g. intersecting with them, and hence the locations are obviously “based on” the arrangement of dies). Wang teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention: 22. A method (see e.g. Fig. 12) comprising: providing a plurality of dies (see e.g. two dies 34 in Fig. 8; this is created from four dies 24 and 25, see e.g. Fig. 4), each die having a top surface (top of 34 as shown in Fig. 8) and a bottom surface (bottom of 34 as shown in Fig. 8); at least partially encapsulating the plurality of dies in a mold material (“mold compound 59”, see e.g. para 35) the mold material having a first surface (top surface thereof, see e.g. Fig. 8) at a same level as the top surface of each of the plurality of dies and the mold material having a second surface (bottom surface thereof, see e.g. Fig. 8) below the bottom surface of each of the plurality of dies (see e.g. Fig. 8); forming one or more grooves (the space within 59 occupied by 61; in an alternative embodiment to Figs. 1-8, the grooves 75 may be formed in encapsulant 73 as shown in e.g. Fig. 9) in the mold material, the one or more grooves extending from the first side of the mold material toward the second side of the mold material opposite the first side of the mold material, and a material (“stress relief features 61”; see 77 in the alternative embodiment in Fig. 10) in the groove and laterally between adjacent dies of the plurality of dies, the electrically conductive material having an outermost surface at a same level as the first side of the mold material and as the top surface of each of the plurality of dies, and coupling a substrate 13 coupled to the bottom surface of each die of the plurality of dies. Wang does not explicitly teach that the material in the groove comprising the “stress relief features 61” is an electrically conductive material. Su teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Wang that the material in the groove comprising the “stress relief features 61” to comprise an electrically conductive material (see e.g. para 24, wherein a stress relief layer 178 is formed in an opening 174 within insulating materials 140, 152, and wherein 178 comprises conductive materials such as lead-based eutectic compositions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Su, including the conductive material used for stress relief, to the invention of Wang. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming Wang’s 61 out of a material that is known to effectively relieve stress (para 23) and which can be formed by known methods such as electroplating (see e.g. para 23). Furthermore, such a material could allow for the formation of other electrical contacts such as copper pillars 182, if so desired. Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Su and US 2020/0075502 A1 (“Kim”). Re claims 4-6 and 8-9, Wang and Su teach claim 1, but not: a component that physically and electrically couples with the first die and with the second die (claim 4); wherein the component is a bridge (claim 5); wherein the at least a portion of the groove extends from the first side of the mold material to a location proximate to a surface of the component (claim 6); wherein the at least a portion of the groove extends from the first side of the mold material to the component, and wherein the electrically conductive material is electrically coupled with the component (claim 8); or wherein the groove extends from a first edge of the mold material to a second edge of the mold material, wherein the first edge of the mold material and the second edge of the mold material are perpendicular to the first side of the mold material (claim 9). Kim teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Wand and Su, a component (see e.g. substrate 110, see e.g. Fig. 2K of Kim) that physically and electrically couples with the first die and with the second die (see e.g. para 24-25, wherein the devices support each other and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand them to be electrically coupled though the specific drawings of wirings 114 do not show the electrical connection explicitly) (claim 4); wherein the component is a bridge (see claim interpretation section, above) (claim 5); wherein the at least a portion of the groove extends from the first side of the mold material to a location proximate to a surface of the component (see e.g. Fig. 2K) (claim 6); wherein the at least a portion of the groove extends from the first side of the mold material to the component, and wherein the electrically conductive material is electrically coupled with the component (see e.g. Fig. 2K of Kim) (claim 8); and wherein the groove extends from a first edge of the mold material to a second edge of the mold material, wherein the first edge of the mold material and the second edge of the mold material are perpendicular to the first side of the mold material (see e.g. Fig. 2K of Kim) (claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Kim to the invention of Wand and Su. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of allowing the devices in the package to be connected together to allow interaction together, creating a system in a package of interconnected devices (see e.g. para 2, 3, 6, 8-9, 21, 24-25, etc.). Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Su and US 2020/0273839 A1 (“Elsherbini”). Wang and Su teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach or suggest: the package of claim 12, further comprising one or more bridges that are electrically and physically coupled with at least a subset of the plurality of dies, wherein the one or more bridges are within the mold material (claim 14); the package of claim 14, wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves extend from the first side of the mold material to a location proximate to a surface of at least one of the one or more bridges (claim 15); or the package of claim 14, wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves extend from the first side of the mold material to a surface of at least one of the one or more bridges (claim 16). Elsherbini teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Wang and Su: the package of claim 12, further comprising one or more bridges that are electrically and physically coupled with at least a subset of the plurality of dies, wherein the one or more bridges are within the mold material (see e.g. Fig. 1, wherein 114-1 is within molding compound 127 and serves as a bridge between chips 114-2 and 114-3) (claim 14); the package of claim 14, wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves extend from the first side of the mold material to a location proximate to a surface of at least one of the one or more bridges (see Wang, Fig. 8, wherein the trench extends down to 13, so in combination, trenches would extend down to be “proximate” to Elsherbini’s 114-1; because “proximate” has not been narrowed in terms of distances, trenches down to the substrate would be reasonably considered as reading on the claimed limitation) (claim 15); the package of claim 14, wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves extend from the first side of the mold material to a surface of at least one of the one or more bridges (see Wang, Fig. 8, wherein the trench extends down to 13, so in combination, trenches would extend down to Elsherbini’s 114-1) (claim 16) PNG media_image2.png 390 761 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Elsherbini to the invention of Chen and Kim. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of allowing communication between many dies with improved power efficiency, higher bandwidth, and allowing for design flexibility (see e.g. para 26). Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Su and US 2012/0286415 A1 (“Sakai”). Wang and Su teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach: the package of claim 12, wherein the plurality of grooves include a first portion of the plurality of grooves is a continuous trench, and a second portion of the plurality of grooves is an intermittent trench (claim 19); or the package of claim 12, wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves are not linear, with respect to a plane of the first side of the mold material (claim 20). Sakai teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Wang and Su: the package of claim 12, wherein the plurality of grooves include a first portion of the plurality of grooves is a continuous trench (see e.g. Fig. 24, wherein at least part of a single 31 is continuous, between two adjacent holes 30), and a second portion of the plurality of grooves is an intermittent trench (see e.g. Fig. 24, wherein at least two linear trenches 31 are separated by larger, round holes 30, so the 31 itself is not continuously a linear trench; one definition of “groove” according to Merriam Webster dictionary is “a long narrow channel or depression”, so it is a reasonable interpretation that a larger hole between the narrow trenches is an intermittent break in the narrow channels) (claim 19); and the package of claim 12, wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves are not linear, with respect to a plane of the first side of the mold material (see e.g. Fig. 24, wherein some of the grooves are round holes 30, which are nonlinear) (claim 20). PNG media_image3.png 479 612 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Sakai to the invention of Wang and Su. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using both holes and trenches in a manner that allows secure grounding of an external shield (see e.g. para 17) in a way to provide a compact and thin package (see e.g. para 18). Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 17 is/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: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claim 17, including: an electrically conductive material in each of the plurality of grooves and laterally between the first of the plurality of dies and the second of the plurality of dies, the electrically conductive material having an outermost surface at a same level as the first side of the mold material and as the top surface of each of the plurality of dies, and a substrate coupled to the bottom surface of the first die and to the bottom surface of the second die; further comprising one or more bridges that are electrically and physically coupled with at least a subset of the plurality of dies, wherein the one or more bridges are within the mold material; wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves extend from the first side of the mold material to a surface of at least one of the one or more bridges; wherein the electrically conductive material electrically couples with the at least one of the one or more bridges. The other claims each depend from one of these claims, and each would be allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion Conclusion / Finality Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Conclusion / Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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. /Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896