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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (“Shah” US 2023/0093924), Wu et al. (“Wu” US 2019/0148261), and Zheng et al. (“Zheng” US 2023/0037617).
Regarding claim 1, Shah discloses a 3D semiconductor package (Figures 1, 2) comprising:
a package substrate (108);
a semiconductor package (110) bonded to the package substrate (108, see Figure 1);
a heat dissipation unit (106/206) attached to the semiconductor package (110), wherein the heat dissipation unit (106/206) comprises a first heat dissipation component (106) and a second heat dissipation component (206) attached to the first heat dissipation component (106, see Figure 2 and para. [0029] discloses an adhesive between surfaces 132 and 208 of the first and second heat dissipation components 106/206, respectively); and
a first interface material (adhesive between surfaces 132 and 208, see para. [0029]) disposed between the first heat dissipation component (106) and the second heat dissipation component (206, see Figure 2 and para. [0029]);
a second interface material (214) disposed between the second heat dissipation component (206) and the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 2); and
a third interface material (138) disposed between the first heat dissipation component (106) and the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 2), wherein the first interface material (adhesive between surfaces 132 and 208) is of a material different from the second interface material (214, may be an indium material, see para. [0029]) and the third interface material (“adhesive-type TIM” in para. [0027], thus is a different material from the first interface material which is only an adhesive material).
Shah does not disclose that the first interface material is interposed between the second interface material and the third interface material at a level of a top surface of the semiconductor package. Shah’s first interface material (adhesive not shown) is located between surfaces 208 and 132, not necessarily located between the second and third interface materials at the top surface of the semiconductor package (see Figure 2, para. [0029]).
Wu discloses, however, a first interface material (TIM, 400) located between a heat spreader (300) and a die stack (110/120/130/140), the structure of which is analogous to the first heat dissipation component (106) and the protrusion (210) of the second heat dissipation component (206) of Shah, respectively. The incorporation of the first interface material (400) of Wu into the teachings of Shah results in a configuration where the first interface material of Shah (the adhesive not shown, between surfaces 208 and 132) would be further interposed laterally between the protrusion (210) of the second heat dissipation component (206) and the first heat dissipation component (106), thereby arriving at the claimed configuration where the first interface material is located between the second and third interface materials (138 and 214, respectively) at a level of a top surface of the semiconductor package (110). This is demonstrated further, visually, in the annotated Figure 2 of Shah below.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first interface material as taught by Wu into the teachings of Shah to include the first interface material interposed between the second and third interface materials at a level of a top surface of the package for the purpose of further improving heat dissipation (Wu, para. [0035]). Additionally, the combination would have been obvious because it would result in the predictable result to a person having ordinary skill in the art of improving adhesion between package parts. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Shah and Wu do not explicitly disclose the material of the first interface material, wherein the first interface material is a phase change material having a soft state at a temperature of 40°C to 60°C and having a rigid state at a room temperature.
Zheng discloses using a indium/tin/bismuth metal material for a thermal interface material (40, para. [0085]).
The instant specification (and proceeding claim 2) discloses that the phase change material with a soft state at a temperature of 40°C to 60°C and a rigid state at a room temperature can be a thermal plastic material, a polymer-based get, a thin metallic alloy pad formed by indium, bismuth, and tin, a polymer based elastomer with thermally conductive filler, or a silicone based polymer matrix, or a combination thereof (see para. [0038]). Zheng’s indium/tin/bismuth interface material would inherently have the property as recited for the first interface material in claim 1 because the composition of the instant application’s first interface material is physically the same as Zheng’s interface material (see MPEP 2112.01(II)). Further, while Zheng does not explicitly disclose that the interface material 40 is a phase change material having a soft state at a temperature of 40°C to 60°C and having a rigid state at a room temperature, this inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time (see MPEP 2112(II)). Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zheng discloses the first interface material (40) comprises a polymer-based gel, a thin metallic alloy pad formed by indium, bismuth and tin alloy metal, a polymer based elastomer with thermally conductive filler or a silicone based polymer matrix (indium/tin/bismuth material for interface material 40, para. [0085]).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Zheng into the teachings of Maeda to include Zheng’s interface material (40, indium/tin/bismuth material, para. [0085]) for the first interface material of Maeda (12) for the purpose of using a material with high thermal conductivity (Zheng, para. [0085]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Shah discloses wherein the first heat dissipation component (106) has a through structure (see Figure 1) and is attached to the semiconductor package (110) through the third interface material (138, see Figure 2), and the second heat dissipation component (206) is inserted in the through structure (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Shah discloses wherein the first heat dissipation component (106) includes a structure surface (inner side surfaces above the package 110 of the first heat dissipation component 106) defining the through structure (see Figure 1), the second heat dissipation component (206) includes an embedded surface (lateral side surfaces of the protrusion part 110 of the second heat dissipation component 206, see Figure 2) and the embedded surface conforms to the structure surface (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Shah discloses wherein the second heat dissipation component (206) includes a first portion (protrusion 210) and a second portion (wider, upper portion with fins, see Figure 2), and the first portion (protrusion 210) is more adjacent to the semiconductor package (110) than the second portion (wider, upper portion is farther from the package 110 than the protrusion 210 is).
Regarding claim 7, Shah discloses wherein a lateral dimension of the first portion (protrusion 210) is smaller than a lateral dimension of the second portion (wider, upper portion of 206, see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Shah discloses wherein the first heat dissipation component (106) comprises a plate portion (128, see Figure 1) attached to the semiconductor package (110) and a peripheral portion (124/126) attached to the package substrate (108) through an adhesive (134, see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Shah further discloses a peripheral component (124/126) attached to the package substrate (108) and laterally surrounding the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah, Wu, and Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campbell et al. (“Campbell” US 2017/0130993) as evidenced by Malouin et al. (“Malouin” US 2023/0284421).
Regarding claim 3, Shah discloses wherein the second heat dissipation component (206) is attached to the semiconductor package (110) through the second interface material (214) of a thermal conductivity greater than the third interface material (138, para. [0027] discloses the third interface material 138 as an adhesive which is known in the art to have low thermal conductivity, and para. [0029] discloses the second interface material 214 may be a metal material such as indium which is thermally conductive, thus the thermal conductivity of the second interface material 214 is greater than that of the third interface material 138).
Shah and Wu do not disclose that the second interface material has a thickness smaller than 10µm.
Campbell discloses, however, a second interface material (TIM 202b, para. [0034]) having a thickness smaller than 10µm (less than 2µm, para. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Campbell into the teachings of Shah and Wu above to include the thickness of the second interface material being less than 10µm for the purpose of increasing heat transfer efficiency as evidenced by Malouin (Malouin, para. [0066]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah, Wu, and Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (“Maeda” US 2022/0285254) and Jewram et al. (“Jewram” US 2022/0151108).
Regarding claim 8, Shah and Wu do not disclose wherein the second heat dissipation component has a thermal conductivity greater than the first heat dissipation component.
Maeda discloses, however, a second heat dissipation component (8B) having a thermal conductivity greater than the first heat dissipation component (8A, para. [0028], [0029] disclose that 8A and 8B can be formed of copper or aluminum, which have different thermal conductivities, copper being greater than that of aluminum, thus in the embodiment where the second heat dissipation component 8B is formed of copper and the first heat dissipation component 8A is formed of aluminum, the second heat dissipation component 8B will have a greater thermal conductivity than the first heat dissipation component 8A).
Maeda discloses a finite number of materials used to form the heat dissipation components 8A and 8B, copper or aluminum. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for thermally conductive materials as evidenced by Maeda. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try each of the four different combinations (1. 8A is aluminum, 8B is aluminum 2. 8A is aluminum, 8B is copper 3. 8A is copper, 8B is aluminum 4. 8A is copper, 8B is copper) to yield a thermal conductivity difference suitable for heat dissipation components. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Maeda into the teachings of Shah and Wu above, the combination resulting in the predictable result to a person having ordinary skill in the art of optimizing heat dissipation. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In the event that it would not have been obvious to try 8A as aluminum and 8B as copper, which the Examiner does not concede, Jewram discloses tuning thermal conductivities of a heat dissipation arrangement for a semiconductor device, where a second heat dissipation component 30 has a greater thermal conductivity than a first heat dissipation component 32 (Jewram, para. [0030]) for the purpose of maximizing thermal conductance capacity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Jewram into the teachings of Shah, Wu, and Maeda to include the different thermal conductivities of the heat dissipation components. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (“Shah” US 2023/0093924), Wu et al. (“Wu” US 2019/0148261), Maeda et al. (“Maeda” US 2022/0285254) and Jewram et al. (“Jewram” US 2022/0151108).
Regarding claim 12, Shah discloses a 3D semiconductor package (Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
a package substrate (108);
a semiconductor package (110) bonded to the package substrate (108, see Figure 1);
a heat dissipation unit (106/206) attached to the semiconductor package (110), wherein the heat dissipation unit (106/206) comprises a first heat dissipation component (106) and a second heat dissipation component (206) extending through a thickness of the first heat dissipation component (106, see Figure 2);
a first interface material (adhesive not shown between surfaces 208 and 132, see para. [0029]) between the first heat dissipation component (106) and the second heat dissipation component (206);
a second interface material (138) disposed between and in contact with the first heat dissipation component (106) and the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 1); and
a third interface material (214) disposed between and in contact with the second heat dissipation component (206) and the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 2), wherein the third interface material (214) [is] disposed in an opening of the second interface material (138, see Figure 2) at a level of a top surface of the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 2).
Shah does not disclose that the first interface material (adhesive not shown between surfaces 208 and 132) is disposed in an opening of the second interface material at a level of a top surface of the semiconductor package, since the adhesive is located between surfaces 208 and 132, see para. [0029] of Shah.
Wu discloses, however, a first interface material (TIM, 400) located between a heat spreader (300) and a die stack (110/120/130/140), the structure of which is analogous to the first heat dissipation component (106) and the protrusion (210) of the second heat dissipation component (206) of Shah, respectively. The incorporation of the first interface material (400) of Wu into the teachings of Shah results in a configuration where the first interface material of Shah (the adhesive not shown, between surfaces 208 and 132) would be further interposed laterally between the protrusion (210) of the second heat dissipation component (206) and the first heat dissipation component (106), thereby arriving at the claimed configuration where the first interface material is disposed in an opening of the second interface material (138) at a level of a top surface of the semiconductor package (110). This is demonstrated further, visually, in the annotated Figure 2 of Shah below.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first interface material as taught by Wu into the teachings of Shah to include the first interface material being disposed in an opening of the second interface material at a top level of the package for the purpose of further improving heat dissipation (Wu, para. [0035]). Additionally, the combination would have been obvious because it would result in the predictable result to a person having ordinary skill in the art of improving adhesion between package parts. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Shah and Wu do not disclose wherein the second heat dissipation component has a thermal conductivity greater than the first heat dissipation component.
Maeda discloses, however, a second heat dissipation component (8B) having a thermal conductivity greater than the first heat dissipation component (8A, para. [0028], [0029] disclose that 8A and 8B can be formed of copper or aluminum, which have different thermal conductivities, copper being greater than that of aluminum, thus in the embodiment where the second heat dissipation component 8B is formed of copper and the first heat dissipation component 8A is formed of aluminum, the second heat dissipation component 8B will have a greater thermal conductivity than the first heat dissipation component 8A).
Maeda discloses a finite number of materials used to form the heat dissipation components 8A and 8B, copper or aluminum. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for thermally conductive materials as evidenced by Maeda. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try each of the four different combinations (1. 8A is aluminum, 8B is aluminum 2. 8A is aluminum, 8B is copper 3. 8A is copper, 8B is aluminum 4. 8A is copper, 8B is copper) to yield a thermal conductivity difference suitable for heat dissipation components. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Maeda into the teachings of Shah and Wu above, the combination resulting in the predictable result to a person having ordinary skill in the art of optimizing heat dissipation. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In the event that it would not have been obvious to try 8A as aluminum and 8B as copper, which the Examiner does not concede, Jewram discloses tuning thermal conductivities of a heat dissipation arrangement for a semiconductor device, where a second heat dissipation component 30 has a greater thermal conductivity than a first heat dissipation component 32 (Jewram, para. [0030]) for the purpose of maximizing thermal conductance capacity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Jewram into the teachings of Shah, Wu, and Maeda to include the different thermal conductivities of the heat dissipation components. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Shah discloses wherein the first heat dissipation component (106) has a through structure (see hole in Figure 1) and the second heat dissipation component (206) is inserted in the through structure (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Shah and Wu discloses wherein the first heat dissipation component (106) includes a structure surface (inner side surfaces above the package 110 of the first heat dissipation component 106) defining the through structure (see Figure 1), the second heat dissipation component includes an embedded surface (lateral side surfaces of the protrusion part 110 of the second heat dissipation component 206, see Figure 2) and the embedded surface conforms to the structure surface (see Figure 2), and the first interface material (adhesive between surfaces 208 and 132, further extending along edges of the protrusion 110, i.e. the structure surface, as incorporated by Wu) extends along the structure surface (as incorporated by Wu) to be in contact with the semiconductor package (110).
Regarding claim 15, Shah discloses wherein a top surface of the second heat dissipation component (206) is higher than or coplanar to a top surface of the first heat dissipation component (106, see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Shah discloses wherein the second heat dissipation component (206) includes a first portion (protrusion 210) and a second portion (wider, upper portion with fins), and the first portion (protrusion 210) is more adjacent to the semiconductor package (110) than the second portion (wider, upper portion is farther from the package 110 than the protrusion 210 is).
Regarding claim 17, Shah discloses wherein a lateral dimension of the first portion (protrusion 210) is smaller than a lateral dimension of the second portion (wider, upper portion of 206, see Figure 2).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (“Shah” US 2023/0093924) and Wu et al. (“Wu” US 2019/0148261).
Regarding claim 18, Shah discloses a 3D semiconductor package (Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
a package substrate (108);
a semiconductor package (110) bonded to the package substrate (108, see Figure 1);
a heat dissipation unit (106/206) attached to the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 2), wherein the heat dissipation unit (106/206) comprises a first heat dissipation component (106) having a through structure penetrating through a thickness of the first heat dissipation component (106, see Figure 1 which shows the hole in the center of the first heat dissipation structure 106) and a second heat dissipation component (206) inserted in the through structure (see Figure 2);
a first interface material (138) disposed between and in contact with the first heat dissipation component (106) and the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 2);
a second interface material (214) disposed between and in contact with the second heat dissipation component (206) and the semiconductor package (110, see Figure 2); and
a third interface material (adhesive between surfaces 208 and 132, see para. [0029] and Figure 2) [disposed between the first interface material and the second interface material and] in contact with the first heat dissipation component (106, see para. [0029] and Figure 2)[and] the second heat dissipation component (206, see para. [0029] and Figure 2).
Shah does not disclose that the third interface material (adhesive not shown between surfaces 208 and 132) is disposed between the first interface material (138) and the second interface material (214, see Figure 2) and is in contact with the semiconductor package.
Wu discloses, however, a third interface material (TIM, 400) located between a heat spreader (300) and a die stack (110/120/130/140), the structure of which is analogous to the first heat dissipation component (106) and the protrusion (210) of the second heat dissipation component (206) of Shah, respectively. The incorporation of the third interface material (400) of Wu into the teachings of Shah results in a configuration where the third interface material of Shah (the adhesive not shown, between surfaces 208 and 132) would be further interposed laterally between the protrusion (210) of the second heat dissipation component (206) and the first heat dissipation component (106), thereby arriving at the claimed configuration where the third interface material is disposed in an between the first interface material (138) and the second interface material (214) and is in contact with the semiconductor package (110). This is demonstrated further, visually, in the annotated Figure 2 of Shah below.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first interface material as taught by Wu into the teachings of Shah to include the third interface material being between the first and second interface materials and contacting the semiconductor package for the purpose of further improving heat dissipation (Wu, para. [0035]). Additionally, the combination would have been obvious because it would result in the predictable result to a person having ordinary skill in the art of improving adhesion between package parts. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Shah discloses wherein the through structure (hole in first heat dissipation component 106, see Figure 1) has a lateral dimension gradually increased from a bottom end to a top end further away from the semiconductor package (110) than the bottom end (see Figure 2).
The instant specification discloses in para. [0032] that a gradual increase in the lateral dimension of the through structure is accomplished by a “step change.” Shah discloses a step change as seen in Figure 2.
Regarding claim 20, Shah discloses wherein the second heat dissipation component (206) has a structure (protrusion 210) compensating the through structure (see Figure 2, the parts of the heat dissipation components fit into each other).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed April 9 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 3, 12, and 18 have been fully considered and overcome the objections. The objections of claims 3, 12, and 18have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Genevieve G Bullard-Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-0609. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/Genevieve G Bullard-Connor/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights