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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 25-35 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 25, 27, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2018/0082921 A1) hereinafter referenced as Grassmann, in view of Koo et al., (Korean Patent Publication Number, KR 20170069365 A) hereinafter referenced as Koo, and in view of Fuji Takashi et al., (Japanese Patent Application Publication, JP 2006310486 A), hereinafter referenced as Takashi.
Regarding claim 25, Grassmann teaches a semiconductor package having a heat radiation structure (Fig.1), the semiconductor package comprising: a lower substrate comprising (Fig.1, formed by bottom elements #110, #114 and #112): a first insulating layer (Fig.1, bottom element #110); a first heat radiating metal layer coupled to a lower surface of the first insulating layer (Fig.1, bottom element #114), wherein a horizontal length of the first heat radiating metal layer is less than a horizontal length of the first insulating layer (Fig.1, horizontal length of bottom element #114 is less the a horizontal length of bottom element #110); and a first metal pattern layer coupled to an upper surface of the first insulating layer (Fig.1, bottom element #112 on the top surface of bottom element #110) and including a first metal pad (Fig.1,rightmost pad of bottom element #112), a second metal pad (Fig.1, middle pad of bottom element #112), and a third metal pad which are spaced apart from each other (Fig.1, leftmost pad of bottom element #112); an upper substrate comprising: a second insulating layer (Fig.1, formed by top elements #110, #114 and #112); a second metal pattern layer coupled to a lower surface of the second insulating layer (Fig.1, top element #112); and a second heat radiating metal layer coupled to an upper surface of the second insulating layer (Fig.1, top element #114), wherein a horizontal length of the second heat radiating metal layer is less than a horizontal length of the second insulating layer Fig.1, horizontal length of top element #114 is less the a horizontal length of top element #110); at least one semiconductor chip bonded to an upper surface of the second metal pad of the first metal pattern layer (Fig.1, element #102 bonded to the middle pad of bottom element #112); a wire connected between the at least one semiconductor chip and the first metal pad of the first metal pattern layer (Fig.1, element 170); a terminal lead connected to the first metal pad of the first metal pattern layer to which the wire is connected (Fig.1, element #118 located on the right side of the image); at least one first metal spacer provided between the at least one semiconductor chip and the second metal pattern layer (Fig.1, element #172 located above and over the second pad); a second metal spacer provided between the third metal pad of the first metal pattern layer and the second metal pattern layer (Fig.1, leftmost element #172); a molding housing filled in a space between the lower and upper substrates (Fig.1, element #108).
Grassmann does not teach a plurality of first heat radiating posts coupled to a lower surface of the first heat radiating metal layer. Koo teaches a plurality of first heat radiating posts coupled to a lower surface of the first heat radiating metal layer (Fig.7, elements #200 are coupled to elements #130). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Koo and disclose a plurality of first heat radiating posts coupled to a lower surface of the first heat radiating metal layer. As disclosed by Koo, the posts increase the surface areas that comes in contact with the coolant, which improves heat dissipation (paragraph [005], rows 1-4).
The combination of Grassmann and Koo does not disclose a first post connecting frame coupled to lower ends of the first heat radiating posts. Takashi discloses a first post connecting frame coupled to lower ends of the first heat radiating posts. (Fig.17, first post connecting frame, element #49 is coupled to the lower ends of heat radiating posts, elements #42). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Takashi and disclose a first post connecting frame coupled to lower ends of the first heat radiating posts. As disclosed by Takashi, this increases the rigidity of the structure, and prevents breaking or cracking (paragraph [0029], rows 1-4), and helps dissipate the heat away from the posts.
Grassmann does not teach wherein a horizontal length of the first post connecting frame is less than a horizontal length of the first heat radiating metal layer. Koo teaches a horizontal length of the first heat radiating metal layer is longer that the horizontal length of the area where the heat radiating posts are located (Fig.7, horizontal length of element #130 is larger than the horizontal length of the area where the heat radiating posts pins are located). Takashi teaches a horizontal length of the first post connecting frame is equal to the horizontal length of the area where the heat radiating cooling posts are located (Fig.17). Therefore, the combination of Koo and Takashi teaches a horizontal length of the first post connecting frame is less than a horizontal length of the first heat radiating metal layer. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Koo and Takashi and disclose wherein a horizontal length of the first post connecting frame is less than a horizontal length of the first heat radiating metal layer. Making a horizontal length of the first heat radiating metal layer longer that the horizontal length of the area where the heat radiating posts are located, allows for optimization of the arrangement structures of posts with different shapes (Fig.5 of Koo) in order to obtain the optimum cooling performance. Making the horizontal length of the first post connecting frame equal to the horizontal length of the area where the heat radiating posts are located provides maximum contact area between the post connecting frame and the posts, and therefore maximum heat dissipation away from the posts, while leaving a larger available volume for coolant in the cooling chamber, which also helps heat dissipation.
Grassmann does not teach a first cooling device being in direct contact with a lower surface of the molding housing, wherein the first cooling device is not in direct contact with the first heat radiating metal layer. Koo teaches a first cooling device being in direct contact with to a lower surface of the molding housing, wherein the first cooling device is not in direct contact with the first heat radiating metal layer (Fig.7, bottom element #900 is in direct contact with the bottom surface of the molding housing, element #600 labeled in Fig.1, and is not in direct contact with the first heat radiating metal layer, element #130). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Koo and disclose a first cooling device being in direct contact with a lower surface of the molding housing, wherein the first cooling device is not in direct contact with the first heat radiating metal layer. The cooling device allows the use of a coolant fluid that increases heat dissipation, while connecting it directly to the molding housing results in a robust structure from mechanical point of view.
In a different embodiment Koo further teaches a horizontal width of the first cooling device is greater than to a horizontal width of the molding housing (Fig.6, the horizontal width of element #900, measured from the leftmost lateral side to the rightmost lateral side of element #900, is greater than the horizontal width of the molding housing, element #600, measured from the leftmost lateral side of the molding housing to the rightmost lateral side of the molding housing). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Koo and disclose a horizontal width of the first cooling device is greater than to a horizontal width of the molding housing. This results in a larger cavity and increase coolant flow through it, and a larger surface area, which helps heat dissipation away from the semiconductor chip.
The combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches a plurality of second heat radiating posts coupled to an upper surface of the second heat radiating metal layer; a second post connecting frame coupled to upper ends of the second heat radiating posts, wherein a horizontal length of the second post connecting frame is less than a horizontal length of the second heat radiating metal layer; and a second cooling device being in direct contact with coupled to an upper surface of the molding housing, wherein the second cooling device is not in direct contact with the second heat radiating metal layer (same arguments as noted above apply to the second heat radiating metal layer and second cooling device). Making the top and bottom cooling assemblies identical, results in an easier design by allowing the use of similar parts.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Takashi further teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25, wherein the first heat radiating posts and the first post connecting frame are located in a coolant flow path of the first cooling device and a coolant of the cooling device circulates the coolant flow path (Fig.7, elements #42 and #49 are located in a coolant flow path of the first cooling device, element #61, paragraph [0014], rows 8-9). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Koo and disclose wherein the first heat radiating posts and the first post connecting frame are located in a coolant flow path of the first cooling device and a coolant of the cooling device circulates the coolant flow path. The coolant provides an active cooling mechanism that helps dissipate the heat from the radiating posts and the post connecting frame.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Koo teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25, wherein the first heat radiating posts are independent vertical posts that are not directly connected to each other (Fig.2, elements #200 and paragraph [0051], rows 1-3). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Koo and disclose the first heat radiating posts are independent vertical posts that are not directly connected to each other. As disclosed by Koo, this allows one to easily change the arrangement structure of the cooling posts in order to improve cooling performance (paragraph [0058], rows 1-3).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. As noted in the rejection of claim 25, Koo teaches first heat radiating posts. It is noted that the limitation “wherein the first heat radiating posts are formed by being masked using a screen mask or a stencil mask, printing metal paste or non-metal paste onto the heat radiating metal layer, and then, being hardened” is being treated as a product by process limitation and, as such, only the structure is required to meet the limitations (MPEP 2113).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann in view of Koo, Takashi and in view of Tomoya Oohiraki et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2021/0020456 A1) hereinafter referenced as Oohiraki.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Koo further teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25, wherein a vertical distance between the lower surface of the first insulating layer and the lower surface of the molding housing is equal to the thickness of first heat radiating metal layer (Fig.7). Oohiraki teaches the thickness of the heat radiating layer (Fig.5, element #13, paragraph [0056], row 6) is between 100 um and 5 mm (paragraph [0030], rows 4-6). Therefore, the combination of Koo and Oohiraki teaches a distance from a bottom surface of the insulating layer to a bottom surface of the molding housing where the heat radiating posts are exposed is between 100 um and 5 mm. The range disclosed by claim 26, between 40 um and 4 mm, overlaps the range disclosed by prior art and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Koo and Oohiraki and disclose a distance from a bottom of the insulating layer to a bottom of the molding housing in a range that overlaps the claimed range between 40um and 4mm. The molding housing compound needs to be thick enough to provide electrical insulation, mechanical and chemical protection to the insulating substrate, but thin enough to leave the bottom surface of the heat radiation plate and the heat radiation pins exposed to allow heat dissipation.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann in view of Koo, Takashi and in view of Mukaibo Nagatsugu et al., (Japanese Patent Application Publication Number, JP 2010232366 A), hereinafter referenced as Nagatsugu.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi does not teach the semiconductor package of claim 25, wherein the first heat radiating posts and the first post connecting frame are formed as a single body. Nagatsugu teaches wherein the first heat radiating posts and the first post connecting frame are formed as a single body (Fig.7, post, elements #21 and the connecting frame, formed by elements #22 and #39 form a single body). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nagatsugu and disclose wherein the first heat radiating posts and the first post connecting frame are formed as a single body. This increases the rigidity of the structure as compared to having the posts connected to the post connecting frame using a connecting member and might reduce the number of process steps required to build the cooling structure.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann in view of Koo, Takashi and in view of Ryouhei Yumoto et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2021/0134609 A1), hereinafter referenced as Yumoto.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi does not each the semiconductor package of claim 25, wherein a metal adhesive layer is interposed between the first insulating layer and the first metal pattern layer or between the first insulating layer and the first heat radiating layer. Yumoto teaches wherein a metal adhesive layer (Fig.5, element #27, paragraph [0052], rows 3-5) is interposed between the insulating layer (Fig.5, element #11, paragraph [0052], row 3) and the metal pattern layer or between the insulating layer and the heat radiating metal layer (Fig.5 element #27 is interposed between elements #11 and #23). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Yumoto and disclose wherein a metal adhesive layer is interposed between the first insulating layer and the first metal pattern layer or between the first insulating layer and the first heat radiating layer. Metal adhesive layers can provide strong bonding between metal and insulating layers, and their thickness can be easily controlled to prevent the deformation of the metal layers, due to thermal stress caused by different thermal expansion coefficients of the materials of the package.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann in view of Koo, Takashi and in view of Yoo et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2020/0388557 A1), hereinafter referenced as Yoo.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Koo teaches wherein each of the first heat radiating posts are attached to the first heat radiating metal layer by welding (paragraph [0051], rows 1-3). Takashi teaches wherein each of the first heat radiating posts are attached to the first heat radiating metal layer by brazing (paragraph [0023], rows 1-3). The combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi does not teach the semiconductor package of claim 25, wherein an adhesive layer is interposed between the first heat radiating metal layer and each of the first heat radiating posts. Yoo further teaches wherein an adhesive layer is interposed between the first heat radiating metal layer and each of the first heat radiating posts. (paragraph [0019], rows 3-11). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Yoo and disclose wherein an adhesive layer is interposed between the first heat radiating metal layer and each of the first heat radiating posts. An adhesive layer can provide strong bonding between the first heat radiating metal layer and each of the first heat radiating posts, and represents a cost effective method as compared to welding which needs specialized equipment.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi does not teach the semiconductor package of claim 25, wherein the first heat radiating posts are joined to the first heat radiating metal layer after the molding housing is formed. Note that the limitation “wherein the first heat radiating posts are joined to the first heat radiating metal layer after the molding housing is formed” is a product by process limitation and, as such, only the structure is required to meet the limitations (MPEP 2113). Nevertheless, Yoo teaches wherein the first heat radiating posts are joined to the first heat radiating metal layer after the molding housing is formed (Fig.4A, molding process is performed and Fig.4B posts are attached to element #116, paragraph [0045], rows 1-6). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Yoo and disclose wherein the first heat radiating posts are joined to the first heat radiating metal layer after the molding housing is form. The molding housing provides a strong structure from the mechanical point of view, which allows the attachment of the heat radiating posts while protecting the semiconductor device from potential damage.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann in view of Koo, Takashi and in view of in view of Goto T. et al., (Japanese Patent Application Publication Number, JP 2011091184 A), hereinafter references as Goto.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi does not teach the semiconductor package of claim 25, wherein a first horizontal distance from a lower left corner of the first insulating layer to an upper left corner of the first heat radiating metal layer is less than a second horizontal distance from the lower left corner of the first insulating layer to a lower left corner of the first heat radiating metal layer. Goto teaches wherein a first horizontal distance from a lower corner of the insulating layer to an upper corner of the heat radiating metal layer (Fig.2, horizontal distance is element #E2, from a lower corner of the insulating layer, element #1, to an upper corner of the heat radiating metal layer, element #3, page 1, last paragraph, row 2, of the machine translation) is less than a second horizontal distance from the lower corner of the insulating layer to a lower corner of the heat radiating metal layer (Fig.2, second horizontal distance is the sum of elements #L2 and #E2. Note that there is no difference between left and right sides of the package, in regard to the insulating layer and the first heat radiating metal layer). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Goto and disclose wherein a first horizontal distance from a lower left corner of the insulating layer to an upper left corner of the heat radiating metal layer is less than a second horizontal distance from the lower left corner of the insulating layer to a lower left corner of the heat radiating metal layer. As disclosed by Goto, this reduces tensile stress generated at the end portion of the heat radiating metal layer due to thermal cycle (page 3, paragraphs 6 and 8, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi teaches the semiconductor package of claim 25 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Grassmann, Koo, Takashi and Goto teaches the semiconductor package of claim 34 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Grassmann, Koo and Takashi does not teach the semiconductor package of claim 34, wherein a gap between the first and second horizontal distances is 1 um through 200 um. Goto teaches wherein a gap between the first horizontal distance and the second horizontal distance is (Fig.2, the gap is equal to #L2, the difference between the first horizontal distance, element #E2, and the second horizontal distance, sum of elements #L2 and #E2) is between 110 um and 500 um (page 2, second paragraph, of the machine translation). The range of claim 35, between 1 um through 200 um, overlaps the range disclosed by prior art and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Goto and disclose a gap between the first distance and the second distance that overlaps with the range between 1 um through 200 um. As disclosed by Goto, this feature of the package reduces tensile stress generated at the end portion of the heat radiating layer due to thermal cycle (page 2, paragraphs 6 and 8, see machine translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they
are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CRISTIAN A TIVARUS whose telephone number is (703)756-4688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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.
/CRISTIAN A TIVARUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights