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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, 12-14 and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an updated prior art search.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The last four words of the claim “are a same length” do not make sense in the claim. Examiner believes these words were supposed to be deleted and were left in the amended claim in error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: A word or punctuation appears to be missing after the limitation “wherein two or more edges of the third non-active die are aligned”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is rejected for claiming “wherein the width of the first non-active die is greater relative to a width of the third non-active die” when claim 9 (from which claim 12 depends) clearly outlines reference numeral 210a in Figure 13 as the “first non-active die”. No other figures depict a three non-active die arrangement, and Figure 13 depicts 210a as having the smallest width which is inconsistent with the claimed language. Correction is required for compliance.
Claim 14 is rejected for claiming “wherein the second non-active die is positioned closer to a center of the multi-die package relative to the first non-active die and the third non-active die” and “wherein the first non-active die (210b) is positioned between the second non-active die and the third non-active die”. These limitations contradict the positional arrangement of the first through third non-active dies that is outlined in claim 9 (from which claim 12 depends). Claim 9 states “wherein the second non-active die is between the first non-active die and the third non-active die” and “a first non-active die adjacent to the first active IC die”. Correction is required for compliance.
Claim 21 is rejected for claiming “wherein, in a side view of the multi-die package, opposing sides of the first non-active die are in contact with the encapsulant material” when Figure 2B clearly depicts first non-active die 210a touching only the underfill material 214a and not encapsulant 214b. Correction is required for compliance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jee et al. (US-20200020647-A1 – hereinafter Jee) in view of Shi et al. (US-20230197520-A1 – hereinafter Shi), and further in view of Lin et al. (US-20140287553-A1 – hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Jee teaches a multi-die package (Fig.1 10; ¶0031), comprising:
a plurality of active integrated circuit (IC) dies (Fig.1 200 and 300; ¶0031), attached to an interposer (Fig.1 420; ¶0031), comprising a first active IC die (300), a second active IC die (Fig.1 200 top right), and a third active IC die (Fig.1 200 bottom right), wherein, in a top view of the multi-die package, the second active IC die (200 top right) and the third active IC die (200 bottom right) are adjacent to a same side of the first active IC die (300); and
a non-active die (Fig.1 100; ¶0031) attached to the interposer (420),
wherein, in the top view of the multi-die package, the non-active die (100) is adjacent to the same side of the first active IC die (300) and are between the second active IC die (200 top right) and the third active IC die (200 bottom right).
Jee does not teach wherein the non-active die is a plurality of non-active dies, comprising a first non-active die, and a second non-active die,
wherein the second non-active die is arranged side-by-side with the first non-active die, the second non-active die is positioned closer to an outer edge of the multi-die package relative to the first non-active die, two or more edges of the first non-active die and of the second non-active die are aligned, and a width of the second non-active die is greater relative to a width of the first non-active die.
Shi teaches a multi-die package (Fig.1 124; ¶0027 of Shi) having two non-active dies (Fig.1 top 113 of 124; ¶0027 of Shi) adjacent to an active die (Fig.1 108; ¶0027 of Shi), both non-active dies (top 113 of 124 of Shi) arranged side-by-side with one die positioned closer (right 113 of Shi) to the outer edge of the package (124 of Shi) and two or more edges (top and bottom edges of 113 of Shi) are aligned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use two dummy dies (top 113 of Shi) instead of a single die (100 of Jee) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would be motivated to make this change to increase the surface area of the dummy components, which will increase the surface area available for heat transfer and improve package heat dissipation. Shi also depicts both dummy die configurations to be obvious variants, with Fig.1 depicting wider single dummy dies 113 of Shi on adjacent to the opposite side of active die 108 of Shi. These dummy dies would have a similar layout to 124 of Shi where the single dummy die of Jee (100 of Jee) is effectively split in half, with each resulting dummy die (top 113 of Shi) having the same length and height as the original dummy die (100 of Jee), but shorter width than original dummy die 100 of Jee. This is also demonstrated in Shi as a bottom dummy die labeled 113 is a larger component while the top dummy dies are two smaller components occupying the same footprint, so it is not a conclusive modification.
Jee in view of Shi does not teach wherein a width of the second non-active die is greater relative to a width of the first non-active die.
Lin teaches a multi die package (Fig.1A 20; ¶0009 of Lin (see zoomed in view below)) with a first non-active die (Fig.1A 30B left; ¶0009) and a second non-active die (Fig.1A 30B right; ¶0009), wherein the second non-active die (30B left) is wider than the first non-active die (30B right).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
872
media_image1.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 modify the widths of the individual non-active dies to reduce warpage of the resulting package (¶0016 of Lin) and to optimize that warpage resistance with varying non-active die widths.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin from claim 1 teaches the multi-die package of claim 1, further comprising:
a filler material included in (Fig.2A 410; ¶0032 of Jee):
first gaps (Fig.1 and Fig.2A depict gaps between dies 200 and 300 of Jee) between the plurality of active IC dies (200 and 300 of Jee), second gaps (taught by modification splitting non-active die 100 of Jee into non-active dies 113 of Shi) between the plurality of non-active dies (113 of Shi), and third gaps (g.1 and Fig.2A depict gaps between dummy dies 100 and active dies 200/300 of Jee) between the plurality of non-active dies (113 of Shi) and the plurality of active IC dies (200 and 300 of Jee).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin from claim 1 teaches the multi-die package of claim 1, wherein, in the top view of the multi-die package, the width of the first non-active die (113 left of Shi) is less (taught by Lin modification) than the width of the second non-active die (113 right of Shi).
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin from claim 1 teaches the multi-die package of claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein a width of a gap between the first non-active die and an active IC die, of the plurality of active IC dies, adjacent to the first nonactive die is included in a range of 50 microns to 200 microns.
However, it would have been obvious to form the gaps within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin from claim 1 teaches the multi-die package of claim 1, wherein the plurality of nonactive dies (top 113 of Shi) comprises at least one of:
a dummy die (¶0031 of Jee), or an integrated passive device (IPD).
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin from claim 1 teaches the multi-die package of claim 1, wherein the plurality of active IC dies (200 and 300 of Jee) is a first plurality of active IC dies (200 and 300 of Jee),
wherein the plurality of non-active dies (113 of Shi) is a first plurality of non-active dies (113 of Shi), and
wherein the multi-die package further comprises:
a second plurality of active IC dies (Fig.1 200 left; ¶0031 of Jee) attached to the interposer (420 of Jee), and
a second plurality of non-active dies (Fig.1 100 left; ¶0031 of Jee. 100 left of Jee is modified in an identical manner to 100 right of Jee; see claim 1 rejection) that, in the top view of the multi-die package, are positioned between two or more of the second plurality of active IC dies (200 left of Jee) and attached to the interposer (420 of Jee).
Regarding claim 27, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin from claim 1 teaches the multi-die package of claim 2, wherein the first gaps (Fig.1 and Fig.2A depict gaps between dies 200 and 300 of Jee) comprise a first gap, the second gaps (taught by modification splitting non-active die 100 of Jee into non-active dies 113 of Shi) comprise a second gap, and the third gaps (Fig.1 and Fig.2A depict gaps between dummy dies 100 and active dies 200/300 of Jee) comprise a third gap.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first gap, the second gap, or the third gap is a distance included in a range of 50 microns to 200 microns.
However, it would have been obvious to form the gap distance within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 28, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin from claim 1 teaches the multi-die package of claim 1, further comprising:
a filler material included in (Fig.2A 410; ¶0032 of Jee):
first gaps (Fig.1 and Fig.2A depict gaps between dies 200 and 300 of Jee) from each of the plurality of active IC dies (200 and 300 of Jee) to the outer edge of the multi-die package (10 of Jee), and a second gap (taught by modification splitting non-active die 100 of Jee into non-active dies 113 of Shi) from an outermost non-active die (top 113 of Shi), of the plurality of side-by-side non-active dies (113 of Shi), to the outer edge of the multi-die package (10 of Jee).
Regarding claim 29, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin from claim 28 teaches the multi-die package of claim 28.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein at least one a first gap, of the first gaps, or the second gap is a distance included in a range of 60 microns to 120 microns.
However, it would have been obvious to form the gap distance within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Chen et al. (US-20190131289-A1 – hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 9, Jee teaches a multi-die package (Fig.1 10; ¶0031), comprising:
a plurality of active integrated circuit (IC) dies (Fig.1 200 and 300; ¶0031), attached to an interposer (Fig.1 420; ¶0031), comprising a first active IC die (300), a second active IC die (Fig.1 200 top right) adjacent to the first active IC die (300), and a third active IC die (Fig.1 200 bottom right) adjacent to the first active IC die (300) and below the second active IC die (200 top right); and
a non-active die (Fig.1 100; ¶0031), attached to the interposer (420) and positioned between the second active IC (200 top right) and the third active IC die (200 bottom right).
Jee does not teach wherein the non-active die is a plurality of non-active dies, comprising:
a first non-active die adjacent to the first active IC die,
a second non-active die adjacent to the first non-active die,
wherein two or more edges of the first non-active die and the second non-active die are aligned, and wherein a width of the second non-active die is greater relative to a width of the first non-active die, and
a third non-active die adjacent to the second non-active die, wherein the second non-active die is between the first non-active die and the third non-active die.
Shi teaches a multi-die package (Fig.1 124; ¶0027 of Shi) having two non-active dies (Fig.1 top 113 of 124; ¶0027 of Shi) adjacent to an active die (Fig.1 108; ¶0027 of Shi), both non-active dies (top 113 of 124 of Shi) arranged side-by-side with one die positioned closer (right 113 of Shi) to the outer edge of the package (124 of Shi) and two or more edges (top and bottom edges of 113 of Shi) are aligned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use two dummy dies (top 113 of Shi) instead of a single die (100 of Jee) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would be motivated to make this change to increase the surface area of the dummy components, which will increase the surface area available for heat transfer and improve package heat dissipation. Shi also depicts both dummy die configurations to be obvious variants, with Fig.1 depicting wider single dummy dies 113 of Shi on adjacent to the opposite side of active die 108 of Shi. These dummy dies would have a similar layout to 124 of Shi where the single dummy die of Jee (100 of Jee) is effectively split in half, with each resulting dummy die (top 113 of Shi) having the same length and height as the original dummy die (100 of Jee), but shorter width than original dummy die 100 of Jee. This is also demonstrated in Shi as a bottom dummy die labeled 113 is a larger component while the top dummy dies are two smaller components occupying the same footprint, so it is not a conclusive modification.
Jee in view of Shi does not teach wherein a width of the second non-active die is greater relative to a width of the first non-active die, and
a third non-active die adjacent to the second non-active die, wherein the second non-active die is between the first non-active die and the third non-active die.
Lin teaches a multi die package (Fig.1A 20; ¶0009 of Lin (see zoomed in view below)) with a first non-active die (Fig.1A 30B left; ¶0009) and a second non-active die (Fig.1A 30B right; ¶0009), wherein the second non-active die (30B left) is wider than the first non-active die (30B right).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
872
media_image1.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 modify the widths of the individual non-active dies to reduce warpage of the resulting package (¶0016 of Lin) and to optimize that warpage resistance with varying non-active die widths.
Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin does not teach a third non-active die adjacent to the second non-active die, wherein the second non-active die is between the first non-active die and the third non-active die.
Chen teaches a multi die package (Fig.3; ¶0043 of Chen) wherein at least three dummy chips (Fig.3 119c; ¶0043 of Chen) are disposed adjacent to an active chip (Fig.3 19b; ¶0043 of Chen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the modified dummy die of Jee in view of Shi (100 of Jee and 113 of Shi) to include a third dummy die (19b of Chen). Such a change amounts to a duplication of parts and would still be subject to the same constraints taught by Jee and Shi, where the resulting dummy dies would sit in the footprint of the unmodified dummy die 100 of Jee and would be aligned by having the same length and height but with different widths.
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Chen from claim 9 teaches the multi-die package of claim 9, wherein two or more edges of the third non-active die are aligned with the two or more edges of the first non-active die and the second non-active die (the modified dummy die of Jee (100 of Jee) in view of Shi and Chen meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Chen from claim 9 teaches the multi-die package of claim 9, wherein the width of the first non-active die is greater relative to a width of the third non-active die (modifications to the individual widths of each dummy die are obvious to reduce warpage of the resulting package (¶0016 of Lin) and to optimize that warpage resistance with varying non-active die width, see claim 9 rejection).
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Chen from claim 12 teaches the multi-die package of claim 12, wherein the width of the third non-active die is greater relative to the width of the second non-active die (modifications to the individual widths of each dummy die are obvious to reduce warpage of the resulting package (¶0016 of Lin) and to optimize that warpage resistance with varying non-active die width, see claim 9 rejection).
Regarding claim 14, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Chen from claim 9 teaches the multi-die package of claim 9, wherein the second non-active die is positioned closer to a center of the multi-die package relative to the first non-active die and the third non-active die;
wherein the third non-active die is positioned closer to an outer edge of the multi-die package relative to the first non-active die and the second non-active die; and
wherein the first non-active die is positioned between the second non-active die and the third non-active die (the individual positions of each non-active die are obvious in view of the cited references because the modifications and rationales can be rewritten for whichever non-active die is labeled first, second or third. In other words, these limitations are obvious to try and are not patentably distinct over claim 9).
Claim(s) 21, 23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Newlin (US-20220351901-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Jee teaches A device package (Fig.1; ¶0031), comprising:
a multi-die package (Fig.1 10; ¶0031), comprising:
an interposer (Fig.1 420; ¶0031) comprising a plurality of redistribution layers (interposers are known to comprise redistribution layers);
a plurality of active integrated circuit (IC) dies (Fig.1 200 and 300; ¶0031) attached to the interposer (420);
a non-active die (Fig.1 100; ¶0031), attached to the interposer (420), comprising:
an underfill material (Fig.2A 410; ¶0032).
Jee does not teach wherein the non-active die is a plurality of non-active dies, comprising:
a first non-active die, and a second non-active die, arranged side-by-side with the first non-active die in a row on the interposer, spaced apart from the first non-active die by a first gap, wherein, in a top view of the multi-die package, two or more edges of the first non-active die and of the second non-active die are aligned, and wherein, in the top view of the multi-die package, a width of the second non-active die is greater relative to a width of the first non-active die;
an encapsulant material, wherein, in a side view of the multi-die package, opposing sides of the first non-active die are in contact with the encapsulant material; and
wherein, in the side view of the multi-die package, a first side of the second non-active die is in contact with the encapsulant material and a second side of the second non-active die, opposite of the first side of the second nonactive die, is in contact with the underfill material.
Shi teaches a multi-die package (Fig.1 124; ¶0027 of Shi) having two non-active dies (Fig.1 top 113 of 124; ¶0027 of Shi) adjacent to an active die (Fig.1 108; ¶0027 of Shi), both non-active dies (top 113 of 124 of Shi) arranged side-by-side with one die positioned closer (right 113 of Shi) to the outer edge of the package (124 of Shi) and two or more edges (top and bottom edges of 113 of Shi) are aligned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use two dummy dies (top 113 of Shi) instead of a single die (100 of Jee) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would be motivated to make this change to increase the surface area of the dummy components, which will increase the surface area available for heat transfer and improve package heat dissipation. Shi also depicts both dummy die configurations to be obvious variants, with Fig.1 depicting wider single dummy dies 113 of Shi on adjacent to the opposite side of active die 108 of Shi. These dummy dies would have a similar layout to 124 of Shi where the single dummy die of Jee (100 of Jee) is effectively split in half, with each resulting dummy die (top 113 of Shi) having the same length and height as the original dummy die (100 of Jee), but shorter width than original dummy die 100 of Jee. This is also demonstrated in Shi as a bottom dummy die labeled 113 is a larger component while the top dummy dies are two smaller components occupying the same footprint, so it is not a conclusive modification.
Jee in view of Shi does not teach wherein, in the top view of the multi-die package, a width of the second non-active die is greater relative to a width of the first non-active die;
an encapsulant material, wherein, in a side view of the multi-die package, opposing sides of the first non-active die are in contact with the encapsulant material; and
wherein, in the side view of the multi-die package, a first side of the second non-active die is in contact with the encapsulant material and a second side of the second non-active die, opposite of the first side of the second nonactive die, is in contact with the underfill material.
Lin teaches a multi die package (Fig.1A 20; ¶0009 of Lin (see zoomed in view below)) with a first non-active die (Fig.1A 30B left; ¶0009) and a second non-active die (Fig.1A 30B right; ¶0009), wherein the second non-active die (30B left) is wider than the first non-active die (30B right).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
872
media_image1.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 modify the widths of the individual non-active dies to reduce warpage of the resulting package (¶0016 of Lin) and to optimize that warpage resistance with varying non-active die widths.
Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin does not teach an encapsulant material, wherein, in a side view of the multi-die package, opposing sides of the first non-active die are in contact with the encapsulant material; and
wherein, in the side view of the multi-die package, a first side of the second non-active die is in contact with the encapsulant material and a second side of the second non-active die, opposite of the first side of the second nonactive die, is in contact with the underfill material.
Newlin teaches a chip package (Fig.6; ¶0021 of Newlin) comprising an encapsulant (Fig.6 61; ¶0021 of Newlin) surrounding an active chip.
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 encapsulant of Newlin (61 of Newlin) to the device taught by Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of protecting the active dies from the external environment (¶0021 of Newlin).
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Newlin from claim 21 teaches the device package of claim 21, wherein the second non-active die (top 113 left of Shi) is positioned closer to an outer edge of the multi-die package (10 of Jee) relative to the first non-active die (top 113 right of Shi).
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of the width of the second non-active die to the width of the first nonactive die is included in a range of greater than 1:1 to less than or equal to 10:1.
However, it would have been obvious to form the ratio of the widths within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Newlin from claim 23 teaches the device package of claim 23, wherein the two or more edges, (top and bottom edges) of the first non-active die (top 113 right of Shi) and the second non-active die (top 113 left of Shi) comprises:
a first edge (top edge), of the first non-active die (top 113 right of Shi) and the second non-active die (top 113 left of Shi), adjacent to a first active IC die (200 top of Jee) of the plurality of active IC dies (200 and 300 of Jee), and a second edge (bottom edge), of the first non-active die (top 113 right of Shi) and the second non-active die (top 113 left of Shi), opposing the first edge (top edge) and adjacent to a second active IC die (200 bottom of Jee) of the plurality of active IC dies (200 and 300 of Jee).
Regarding claim 26, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Newlin from claim 25 teaches the device package of claim 25, wherein the two or more edges of the first non-active die (top 113 right of Shi) further comprises a third edge (right edge), that is orthogonal to the first edge (top edge) of the first non-active die (top 113 right of Shi), and the second edge (bottom edge) of the first non-active die (top 113 right of Shi), wherein the third edge (right edge) is adjacent to a third active IC die (300 of Jee) of the plurality of active IC dies (200 and 300 of Jee).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Newlin, and further in view of Shih et al. (US-20210175188-A1 – hereinafter Shih).
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Newlin from claim 21 teaches the device package of claim 21, wherein the multi-die package (10 of Jee not including 500) is a first multi-die package (10 of Jee not including 500).
The aforementioned combination does teach a PCB board (Fig.1 500; ¶0031).
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the device package further comprises:
a second multi-die package, comprising:
another interposer of the second multi-die package, wherein the other interposer of the second multi-die package comprises another plurality of redistribution layers;
another plurality of active IC dies attached to the other interposer of the second multi-die package; and
another plurality of non-active dies attached to the other interposer of the second multi-die package, wherein the other plurality of non-active dies are arranged side by side in a row on the other interposer such that the other plurality of nonactive dies and the other plurality of active IC dies are spaced apart by second gaps; and
at least one of another underfill material or another molding compound in the second gaps.
Shih teaches a layout of two identical pluralities of active and inactive IC dies (Fig.8 of Shih).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have duplicated the first multi-die package (Fig.1 10 of Jee not including 500) to have a second identical multi-die package on the PCB board (500 of Jee). A practitioner would be motivated to make this modification to increase the processing power of the entire device package. This limitation could alternatively be viewed as a duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Newlin, and further in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned combination of Jee in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin, and further in view of Newlin from claim 23 teaches the device package of claim 23.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the plurality of non-active dies comprises:
a third non-active die side-by-side with the second non-active die, wherein the third non-active die is positioned closer to the outer edge of the multi-die package relative to the second non-active die, and wherein a ratio of a width of the third non-active die to the width of the first nonactive die is included in a range of greater than 1:1 to less than or equal to 10:1.
Chen teaches a multi die package (Fig.3; ¶0043 of Chen) wherein at least three dummy chips (Fig.3 119c; ¶0043 of Chen) are disposed adjacent to an active chip (Fig.3 19b; ¶0043 of Chen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the modified dummy die of Jee in view of Shi (100 of Jee and 113 of Shi) to include a third dummy die (19b of Chen). Such a change amounts to a duplication of parts and would still be subject to the same constraints taught by Jee and Shi, where the resulting dummy dies would sit in the footprint of the unmodified dummy die 100 of Jee and would be aligned by having the same length and height but with different widths.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein a ratio of a width of the third non-active die to the width of the first nonactive die is included in a range of greater than 1:1 to less than or equal to 10:1.
However, it would have been obvious to form the ratio of the widths within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights