DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12, 23-25 in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations from claim 23: “wherein the first memory die stack and the second memory die stack are embedded in the stiffener; and a die module coupled to the package substrate and positioned in within an inner diameter of the stiffener” (this is described in the specification in Example 23 [0086], but the closest that this is shown in a figure is figure 4b which shows stiffener 411 embedded in the molding 428 but not the stack of dies represented by 422) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On the end of the claim – the phrase “package substrate positioned in within an inner diameter of the stiffener”, the bolded section should be corrected to read either ‘within’ or ‘in’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0375846.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an electronic package comprising (Figs. 1A-1C):
a package substrate 111A,
a first memory die stack (the left ED, [0021]) on the package substrate,
a second memory die stack (the right ED) on the package substrate,
an electrically insulating layer over the first memory die stack and the second memory die stack (a thin layer 130A extends over the stack dies, Fig. 1D; [0023]),
an opening through the electrically insulating layer (where the third/middle ED would be located), and
a die module (the third ED or the middle ED; Fig. 1D) in the opening over the package substate.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the first memory die and the second memory die are electrically coupled to the die module by interconnects in the package substrate (bonded through vias 116 and dielectric layer 115b, Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses wherein the die module comprises a first die and a second die (the third ED or the middle ED; Fig. 1D, is a plurality of dies [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses further comprising a third memory die stack on the package substrate and a fourth memory die stack on the package substrate (Fig. 2A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0375846, in view of Niu et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0063200.
Regarding claim 2, Chen fails to disclose wherein the first and second die stacks are electrically coupled to the substrate by wire bonds.
Niu discloses the memory die stacks wherein the die stacks are wire bonded directly to the substrate (by wire bond 214, Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Niu’s in Chen invention in order to provide directly contact for all the dies in the stack.
Regarding claim 12, Chen fails to disclose wherein the memory die stacks comprising four or more memory dies are wire bonded directly to the substrate. Niu discloses the memory die stacks comprise four or more dies (212-1, 212-2, 212-3, 212-4…212-N, Fig. 2A) wherein each of the dies are wire bonded directly to the substrate (by wire bond 214, Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Niu’s in Chen invention in order to obtain higher density and improve performance and to provide directly contact for all the dies in the stack.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0375846, in view of Gomes et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,381,193.
Regarding claim 4, Chen fails to disclose wherein the die module is a system on a chip (SoC). Gomes discloses the electronic package wherein the die module is a system on a chip (SoC) (lines 7-20, Col. 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Gomes’s in Chen invention in order to obtain high performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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, since the prior made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations having the limitations of claim 1 wherein the die module comprises a first die and a second die.
Claims 8-10 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, since the prior made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations having the limitations of claim 1 further comprising a stiffener around the first memory die stack and the second memory die stack.
Claims 23-26 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reason for allowance: None of the references of record teaches or suggests the claimed having an electronic system comprising: a first memory de stack coupled to the substrate, a second memory die stack coupled to the substrate, a stiffener on the substrate wherein the first memory die and the second memory die are embedded in the stiffener and a die module coupled to the substrate and positioned within an inner diameter of the stiffener.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO P LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THAO P LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818