DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “through hole” as recited in claims 21-23, 25, 27 and 32.
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 28-30 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.
Regarding claim 28, the limitation “a portion of the mechanical brace within the substrate” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited elements.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, 28-30, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2021/0125960; herein “Huang”) in view of Yu et al. (US 20210305123; herein “Yu”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches in Fig. 1F, 2A-C and related text a semiconductor package comprising:
a first package component comprising:
an integrated circuit die (130, see [0020]);
an encapsulant (150, see [0022]) surrounding the integrated circuit die; and
a fan-out structure (170, see [0023]) electrically connected to the integrated circuit die, wherein a first opening (190, see [0025]) extends completely through the fan-out structure and at least partially through the encapsulant in a cross-sectional view, and wherein the encapsulant at least completely surrounds the first opening in a top-down view; and
a package substrate (e.g. 210, see [0025]) bonded to the first package component by a plurality of solder connectors (200, see [0025])
a bar (240, see [0026]) extending from a bottom surface of the first package component to a top surface of the package substrate, wherein the bar is disposed between the solder connectors, and wherein the integrated circuit die overlaps (e.g. in a diagonal direction) the bar in a cross-sectional view.
Huang does not explicitly disclose the bar is a metal bar.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches in Fig. 1H and related text a semiconductor package comprising a metal bar (194/196, see [0034]).
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 invention of Huang by having a metal bar in order to provide a rigid support with high stiffness (see Yu [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Huang further discloses wherein the first opening (190) extends completely through the first package component (100/200).
Regarding claim 3, Huang further discloses wherein a second opening (212, see [0025]) extends completely through the package substrate (210), and wherein the first opening overlaps the second opening.
Regarding claim 34, Huang further disclose wherein the metal bar is wider than the second opening in the cross-sectional view (e.g. width taken in the vertical direction as shown in Fig. 1F).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device shows a mechanical brace (Huang: 230, see [0026]; Yu 192, see [0033]) in the first opening, wherein the mechanical brace extends at least partially into the package substrate (210).
Regarding claim 6, the combined device shows a mechanical brace (Huang: 230, see [0026]; Yu 192, see [0033]) extends completely through the package substrate (210).
Regarding claim 7, Huang further discloses wherein the fan-out structure (170) comprises a redistribution structure.
Regarding claim 10, Huang further discloses through vias (120, see [0019]) extending through the encapsulant (150).
Regarding claim 28, Huang teaches in Fig. 1F, 2A-C and related text a semiconductor package comprising:
a first package component comprising:
an integrated circuit die (130, see [0020]);
an encapsulant (150, see [0022]) along a sidewall of the integrated circuit die; and
a first redistribution structure (260, see [0029]) electrically connected to the integrated circuit die;
a second redistribution structure (170, see [0023]) on an opposing side of the integrated circuit die as the first redistribution structure, wherein the second redistribution structure comprises a dielectric layer (e.g. layer portion of 172 through which 176/200 extend, see [0023]);
a package substrate (e.g. 210, see [0025]) bonded to the first package component by solder connectors (176/200, see [0023] and [0025]), wherein the solder connectors extend through the dielectric layer of the second redistribution structure;
a mechanical brace (230, see [0026]) extending through the first package component and the package substrate;
a bar (240, see [0026]) between the first package component and the package substrate, wherein the bar contacts a bottom surface of the dielectric layer of the second redistribution structure and wherein a portion of the mechanical brace (e.g. the portion of 230 which is below 170) within the substrate (note that the portion is at least partially within the substrate) is disposed at a lower level than a bottommost surface of the metal bar in a cross-sectional view (note that the portion is at least partially at a lower level than the bottommost surface of 240).
In the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches the remaining limitations in the same manner and for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 29, the combined device shows wherein the mechanical brace (Huang: 230; Yu 192, see [0033]) extends through the metal bar (Huang: 240; Yu:194/196).
Regarding claim 30, the combined device shows wherein the metal bar (Huang : 240) further contacts a top surface of the package substrate (e.g. edge of top surface of 210 at opening 212, see Fig. 1F).
Claim(s) 21, 25-27 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Yu and Arai (US 20090250803; herein “Arai”).
Regarding claim 21, Huang teaches in Fig. 1F, 2A-C and related text a semiconductor package comprising:
a first package component comprising:
a first integrated circuit die (a first 130, see [0020]);
a second integrated circuit die (a second 130, see [0020]);
an encapsulant (150, see [0022]) surrounding the first integrated circuit die and the second integrated circuit die;
a first fan-out structure (260, see [0029]) electrically connecting the first integrated circuit die to the second integrated circuit die (see [0029]); and
a through hole (190, see [0025]) extending through the first fan-out structure and the encapsulant, wherein the through hole is disposed between the first integrated circuit die and the second integrated circuit die;
a package substrate (210, see [0025]) bonded to the first package component; and
a bar (240, see [0026]) between the first package component and the package substrate, a bottommost surface of the bar contacting a top surface of the package substrate (e.g. thermally contacting the top surface of 210, see Fig. 1F).
Huang does not explicitly disclose
the package substrate comprising a solder resist layer facing the first package component;
the bar is a metal bar contacting a top surface of the solder resist.
In the same field of endeavor, Arai teaches in Fig. 5 and related text a semiconductor package wherein the package substrate (60) comprising a solder resist layer (68, see [0071]) facing the first package component (10).
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 invention of Huang by having the package substrate comprising a solder resist layer facing the first package component, as taught by Arai, in order to coat the wiring and provide protection (see Arai [0071]).
In the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches the remaining limitations in the same manner and for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Note that the limitation “a bottommost surface of the metal bar…contacting a top surface of the solder resist in a cross-sectional view” is taught by the combination of the bottommost surface of the bar contacting a top surface of the package substrate, as shown by Huang, the top surface of the package substrate being the solder resist, as shown by Arai, and the bar being a metal bar as shown by Yu.
Regarding claim 25, Huang further discloses a mechanical brace (230, see [0026]) in the through hole.
Regarding claim 26, Huang further discloses wherein an exterior sidewall of the first package component is scalloped in a top down view (see annotated Fig. 2 below for one example interpretation of “first package component” having an encapsulant thereof which is scalloped shape).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Huang further discloses a redistribution structure (170, see [0023]) on an opposite side of the first integrated circuit die and the second integrated circuit die as the first fan-out structure, and wherein the through hole extends through the redistribution structure (see Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 33, the combined device shows wherein the metal bar (Huang: 240; Yu: 194/196) further contacts a bottom surface of an insulating layer of the redistribution structure (170).
Claim(s) 22-24 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Akai and Yu, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lai et al. (US 2020/0105641; herein “Lai”).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Huang does not explicitly disclose
wherein the through hole has varying widths;
wherein the through hole decreases in width from a top surface of the first fan-out structure to a first location, and wherein the through hole increases in width from the first location to a bottom surface of the encapsulant.
In the same field of endeavor, Lai teaches in Fig. 1F, 3 and related text a semiconductor package
wherein the through hole (170) has varying widths (see Fig. 3);
wherein the through hole decreases in width from a top surface of the first fan-out structure to a first location, and wherein the through hole increases in width from the first location to a bottom surface of the encapsulant (see 170d in Fig. 3).
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 device of Huang by having the through hole having varying widths, the through hole decreases in width from a lateral surface of the first fan-out structure to a first location, and the through hole increases in width from the first location to a lateral surface of the encapsulant, as shown by Lai, in order to form the through hole by alternative methods and/or to achieve a varied shape for improved adhesion or design purposes. Additionally, Lai shows that the various shape profiles are equivalent structures known in the art to the straight profile of Huang. Therefore, because these shapes were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the narrow middle profile of Lai for the straight profile of Huang.
Regarding claim 24, the combined device shows wherein the first location is within the encapsulant (note that a first location can be chosen such that it is within the encapsulation 130 and the through hole will decrease in width from a lateral surface of the first fan-out structure towards the first location, and the through hole will increase in width from the first location towards at least one lateral surface of the encapsulant). Further, it would have been obvious to have the first location in the encapsulant for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (in the encapsulant, in the fan out structure, or in the upper substrate(s)), with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 32, Huang does not explicitly disclose the through hole decreases in width from a top surface of the first fan-out structure to a first location, and wherein the through hole increases in width from the first location to a bottom surface of the redistribution structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Lai teaches in Fig. 1F, 3 and related text a semiconductor package
the through hole (170) decreases in width from a top surface of the first fan-out structure to a first location, and wherein the through hole increases in width from the first location to a bottom surface of the redistribution structure (see 170d in Fig. 3).
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 device of Huang by having the through hole decrease in width from a lateral surface of the first fan-out structure to a first location, and the through hole increase in width from the first location to a lateral surface of the encapsulant, as shown by Lai, in order to form the through hole by alternative methods and/or to achieve a varied shape for improved adhesion or design purposes. Additionally, Lai shows that the various shape profiles are equivalent structures known in the art to the straight profile of Huang. Therefore, because these shapes were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the narrow middle profile of Lai for the straight profile of Huang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. Note that the references have been newly interpreted to teach the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights