CTNF 17/707,536 CTNF 84435 DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/26 has been entered. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse to the restriction requirement mailed on 4/25/25 of Group I (original device claims 1-21, though claims 3 and 7 have been canceled), in the reply filed on 6/24/25 was acknowledged in a previous office action. Claim 22 is a linking claim and will be examined. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The Office will use the following interpretations: The limitation “bridge” has not been defined in the specification or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 § 102 07-07 AIA 07-07-aia The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0138148 A1 (“Chen”) . Chen teaches, for example: PNG media_image1.png 480 677 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 235 730 media_image2.png Greyscale Chen teaches: 1. A package comprising: a first die (e.g. 121) and a second die (e.g. 122), the first die having a top surface (e.g. bottom surface of 121, as shown in Fig. 3; the device may be rotated by 180 degrees for it to be a relative “top” surface) and a bottom surface (e.g. top surface of 121, as shown in Fig. 3; the device may be rotated by 180 degrees for it to be a relative “bottom” surface), and the second die having a top surface (e.g. bottom surface of 122, as shown in Fig. 3; the device may be rotated by 180 degrees for it to be a relative “top” surface) and a bottom surface (e.g. top surface of 122, as shown in Fig. 3; the device may be rotated by 180 degrees for it to be a relative “bottom” surface); a mold material (e.g. material of “package body” 13; see para 26 for “molding compound”; it comprises first portion 131 and second portion 132) surrounding the first die and the second die, the mold material having a first surface (e.g. bottom surface of 13, or 131, or 132) at a same level as the top surface of the first die and as the top surface of the second die (see Fig. 3), and the mold material having a second surface (e.g. top surface of 13, or 131, or 132) below the bottom surface of the first die and the bottom surface of the second die (see Fig. 3); a groove (“space,” or “trench” 14; see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3) in the mold material, the groove extending from the first side of the mold material toward the second side of the mold material (see e.g. Fig. 3), and an electrically conductive material (see “conductive material” in 14, see e.g. para 24, forming an “EMI compartment shield”, see e.g. para 27) in the groove and laterally between the first die and the second die (see e.g. Fig. 3), the electrically conductive 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. 3). 2. The package of claim 1, wherein the first die and the second die are in a first plane (see e.g. Fig. 3), 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. 3). 10. The package of claim 1, wherein the groove is a selected one or more of: a continuous trench or an intermittent trench (“continuous” or “intermittent” are seemingly the only two options for such a trench, thus covering all kinds of trenches; see e.g. Fig. 1, where 14 is continuous over at least the distance shown). 22. A method comprising: providing a plurality of dies (e.g. 121 and 122), each die having a top surface (e.g. bottom surfaces of 121 and 122, as shown in Fig. 3; the device may be rotated by 180 degrees for to be relative “top” surfaces) and a bottom surface (e.g. top surfaces of 121 and 122, as shown in Fig. 3; the device may be rotated by 180 degrees for to be relative “bottom” surfaces); at least partially encapsulating the plurality of dies in a mold material (e.g. material of “package body” 13; see para 26 for “molding compound”; it comprises first portion 131 and second portion 132), the mold material having a first surface at a same level as the top surface of each of the plurality of dies and the mold material having a second surface below the bottom surface of each of the plurality of dies (see Fig. 3; using same rotated orientation as discussed for the chips); forming one or more grooves (“space,” or “trench” 14; see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3) 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 (see e.g. Fig. 3), and an electrically conductive material (see “conductive material” in 14, see e.g. para 24, forming an “EMI compartment shield”, see e.g. para 27) in the groove and laterally between adjacent dies of the plurality of dies (see e.g. Fig. 3), 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 e.g. Fig. 3) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US 2020/0075502 A1 (“Kim”) . Re claims 4-6 and 8-9, Chen teaches 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 Chen, 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 Chen. 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.). Re claim 11, Chen teaches claim 1, but not wherein the first die and/or the second die are electrically coupled with one or more solder balls at a side of the package. 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 Chen wherein the first die and/or the second die are electrically coupled with one or more solder balls at a side of the package. 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 Chen. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of ultimately allowing the chips to be electrically connected to external objects such as PCBs or other substrates (see e.g. para 60 and Fig. 10A). Chen teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention: 12. A package comprising: a plurality of dies (e.g. 121 and 122), each die having a top surface (e.g. bottom surfaces of 121 and 122, as shown in Fig. 3; the device may be rotated by 180 degrees for to be relative “top” surfaces) and a bottom surface (e.g. top surfaces of 121 and 122, as shown in Fig. 3; the device may be rotated by 180 degrees for to be relative “bottom” surfaces); a mold material (e.g. material of “package body” 13; see para 26 for “molding compound”; it comprises first portion 131 and second portion 132) surrounding the plurality of dies, the mold material having a first surface at a same level as the top surface of the plurality of each of the plurality of dies and the mold material having a second surface below the bottom surface of each of the plurality of dies (see Fig. 3; using same rotated orientation as discussed for the chips); a groove (“space,” or “trench” 14; see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3) in the mold material, the groove extending from the first side of the mold material toward the second side of the mold material (see e.g. Fig. 3); 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, and an electrically conductive material (see “conductive material” in 14, see e.g. para 24, forming an “EMI compartment shield”, see e.g. para 27) 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 e.g. Fig. 3), 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 e.g. Fig. 3). Chen does not explicitly disclose a plurality of grooves, each of which extends from the first side of the mold material toward the second side of the mold material. 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 Chen a plurality of grooves, each of which extends from the first side of the mold material toward the second side of the mold material (Kim teaches that hundreds or thousands of the devices are formed in a single panel, see e.g. para 21; also see plural trenches 150 in e.g. Fig. 2C, and plural dicing lines to separate many of the devices in a 2D array, in Fig. 2D). 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 Chen. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming Chen’s EMI compartment shield around each of the thousands of devices that are well-known to be batch-manufactured on a single panel/wafer in two dimensions, thus leading to cost efficiency associated with manufacturing many devices at a single time. It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Chen and Kim 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. Chen’s Fig. 3; and Kim’s Figs. 2C-2D). 18. The package of claim 12, wherein at least some of the plurality of grooves are perpendicular to each other (see e.g. Kim’s Fig. 8A-8B, wherein the EMI trenches may be formed in a square ring, thus having perpendicular sides). 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 claim interpretation section above; it is obvious that Chen’s 14 is formed during devices, rather than being formed through them, and hence the trenches are located “based on the arrangement of 121 and 122 such that 14 does not intersect with 121 or 122) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kim and US 2020/0273839 A1 (“Elsherbini”) . Chen and Kim 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); 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); or the package of claim 16, wherein the electrically conductive material electrically couples with the at least one of the one or more bridges (claim 17). 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 Chen and Kim: 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 Chen, Fig. 3, wherein the trench extends down to the bridge 112 of substrate 11, so in combination wherein Elsherbini’s 114-1/164/133 takes the place of Chen’s 11, trenches would extend down to Elsherbini’s 114-1) (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 Chen, Fig. 3, wherein the trench extends down to the bridge 112 of substrate 11, so in combination wherein Elsherbini’s 114-1/164/133 takes the place of Chen’s 11, trenches would extend down to Elsherbini’s 114-1) (claim 16); and the package of claim 16, wherein the electrically conductive material electrically couples with the at least one of the one or more bridges (see e.g. Fig. 3 of Chen, wherein at least one trench has a conductive material down to a grounding element 112) (claim 17). PNG media_image3.png 390 761 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 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kim and US 2012/0286415 A1 (“Sakai”) . Chen and Kim 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, 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 Chen and Kim: 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_image4.png 479 612 media_image4.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 Chen and Kim. 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). 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 / Prior Art The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited. 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 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 2 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 3 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 4 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 5 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 6 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 7 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 8 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 9 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 10 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 11 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 12 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 13 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 14 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 15 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 17/707,536 Page 16 Art Unit: 2896
Prosecution Insights