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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 17-21 and 23 have been considered but are moot of new rejection and interpretation of prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed January 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 5 “that a person of ordinary skill would not need to view a specific drawing to understand “wherein the thermal block is bonded to the first semiconductor by way of solder bonding, “wherein the thermal block is bonded to the first semiconductor by way of adhesive bonding”, and “wherein the thermal block is bonded to the first semiconductor element by a thermal interface material”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, these recitations, implies that there is s solder layer, adhesive layer and a thermal interface material layer/film present which are not shown. It is not whether one of ordinary skill would not need to view a specific drawing, it is what is required by the MPEP. “The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims”. The drawings objection is maintained.
Applicant argues on pages 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 that Lee, Lee in view of Zhang and Sung in view of Zhang and Jung does not specifically disclose “a second integrated device die disposed on the first integrated device die…a heat block directly bonded to the first integrated device die without an adhesive…and a heat sink disposed over and directly bonded to at least the heat block without an adhesive”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that in regards to the chosen embodiment, item 1000, is consistently referred to as a base element or lower die (which could be a substrate, bare die as well0. Examiner takes the position the that it is well known in the art that integrated device die can be disposed on one another in a stacked arrangement and would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an integrated device die instead of a package substrate, pcb or rdl if so desired. The Examiner takes the position the rejections are proper and maintained in regards to claims 10-16 and 22.
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 “wherein the thermal block is bonded to the first semiconductor element by way of solder bonding”, “wherein the thermal block is bonded to the first semiconductor element by way of adhesive bonding” and “wherein the thermal block is bonded to the first semiconductor element by a thermal interface material”, “a heat sink disposed on and directly bonded to a bonding layer of thermal block without an adhesive” and “a heat sink disposed over and directly bonded to at least a bonding layer of the heat block without an adhesive” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 17-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “a heat sink disposed on and directly bonded to a bonding layer of thermal block without an adhesive”. Claim 17 recites “a heat sink disposed over and directly bonded to at least a bonding layer of the heat block without an adhesive”. There is no support in the Applicant’s original disclosure that the heat block has bonding layer. Examiner notes that “bonding layer” is only mentioned three times in the Applicant’s specification (paragraphs [0031], [0036]). Paragraph [0031] recites “In some embodiments, the elements are directly bonded to one another without an adhesive. In various embodiments, a non-conductive or dielectric material of a first element can be directly bonded to a corresponding non-conductive or dielectric field region of a second element without an adhesive. The non-conductive material can be referred to as a nonconductive bonding region or bonding layer of the first element”. However, this is not support for a thermal/heat block having a bonding layer. Also, the Applicant has not established what the first element and the second element is or if it even refers to a thermal/heat block. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-9, 18-21 and 23 inherit these deficiencies due to their dependency upon independent claims 1 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103(a)
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-15 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (Lee) (US 2021/0384096 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 1-15) comprising: a first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); at least one second semiconductor element (items 108 or 114) disposed on the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); and a thermal block (item 160, paragraph 58) disposed on the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) and adjacent to the at least one second semiconductor element (items 108 or 114), the thermal block (item 160) comprising a conductive thermal pathway to transfer heat from the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) to a heat sink (item 166) disposed on and directly bonded to a bonding layer (items 120b, 122b) of the thermal block (item 160), but does not specifically disclose wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is less than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block is higher than 150 Wm.sup.−1 K.sup.−1 at room temperature. However the Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include a thermal block that has a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is less than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block is higher than 150 Wm.sup.−1 K.sup.−1 at room temperature, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a thermal block comprising diamond powder, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In regards to claim 2, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160) is configured to reduce a heat flow through the at least one second semiconductor element (items 108 or 114).
In regards to claim 3, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) does not specifically disclose wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block (item 160) is substantially similar to a CTE of the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a thermal block made of material where a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is substantially similar to a CTE of the first semiconductor element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In regards to claim 4, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block (item 160) is higher than that of the at least one second semiconductor element (items 108 or 114).
In regards to claim 5, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160) is directly bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) without an intervening adhesive.
In regards to claim 6, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) by way of solder bonding.
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
In regards to claim 7, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) by way of adhesive bonding.
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
In regards to claim 8, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160b plus 160c) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) by a thermal interface material (TIM) (item 160a).
In regards to claim 10, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 1-15) comprising: a first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); a second integrated device die (items 108 or 114) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); a heat block (item 160) directly bonded to the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) without an adhesive, wherein the heat flux through the heat block (item 160) is larger than that though the second integrated device die; and a heat sink (item 166) disposed over and directly bonded to at least the heat block (item 160) without an adhesive. The Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine various embodiments of Lee for the purpose of design choice.
In regards to claim 11, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) comprises a conductive thermal pathway to transfer heat from the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) to the heat sink (item 166).
In regards to claim 12, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) is configured to reduce a heat flow through the second integrated device die (items 108 or 114).
In regards to claim 13, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the second integrated device die (items 108 or 114) comprises silicon, and wherein a thermal conductivity of the heat block (item 160) is higher than that of silicon. Lee discloses broadly discloses semiconductor chips which encompasses silicon semiconductor chips. Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
In regards to claim 14, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the heat block is lower than 10 μm/m° C. Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
In regards to claims 15, 21 and 23, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) is laterally inset relative to an outer edge of the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212).
In regards to claim 17, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 1-15) comprising: a first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); a second integrated device die (item 108 or 114) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); a heat block (item 160) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); and a heat sink (item 166) disposed over at least the heat block (item 160), wherein a heat flux through the heat block (item 160)is larger than that through the second integrated device die (item 108 or 114) during operation of the microelectronic device (Figs. 1-15).
In regards to claim 18, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the heat block (item 160) is lower than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the heat block (item 160) is higher than that of silicon. Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
In regards to claim 20, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) is directly bonded to the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) without an adhesive.
In regards to claim 22, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) is disposed over a heat-generating portion of the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee) (US 2021/0384096 A1) in view of Jung et al. (Jung) (US 2019/0148256 A1 now US 10,361,141 B1).
In regard to claim 9, Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one second semiconductor element is directly hybrid bonded to the first semiconductor element without an intervening adhesive.
In regard to claim 16, Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the second integrated device die is directly bonded to the first integrated device die without an adhesive.
In regard to claim 19, Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the second integrated device die is directly bonded to the first integrated device die without an adhesive.
In regard to claims 9,16, 19, Jung (Fig. 4 and associated text) discloses wherein the second integrated device die/semiconductor element (item 130) is directly bonded to the first integrated device die/structure (item 110) without an adhesive.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jung for the purpose of a mechanical and electrical connection.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-15 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee) (US 2021/0384096 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang) (CN 11359154 A).
In regards to claim 1, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 1-15) comprising: a first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); at least one second semiconductor element (items 108 or 114) disposed on the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); and a thermal block (item 160, paragraph 58) disposed on the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) and adjacent to the at least one second semiconductor element (items 108 or 114), the thermal block (item 160) comprising a conductive thermal pathway to transfer heat from the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) to a heat sink (item 166) disposed on and directly bonded to a bonding layer (items 120b, 122b) of the thermal block (item 160), but does not specifically disclose wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is less than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block is higher than 150 Wm.sup.−1 K.sup.−1 at room temperature. However the Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a thermal block comprising diamond powder, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Zhang discloses a thermal block (item 3, heat radiating gasket) that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper, wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is less than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block is higher than 150 Wm.sup.−1 K.sup.−1 at room temperature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of heat dissipation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In regards to claim 2, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160) is configured to reduce a heat flow through the at least one second semiconductor element (items 108 or 114).
In regards to claim 3, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) does not specifically disclose wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block (item 160) is substantially similar to a CTE of the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a thermal block made of material where a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is substantially similar to a CTE of the first semiconductor element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In regards to claim 4, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang discloses wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block (item 160) is higher than that of the at least one second semiconductor element (items 108 or 114).
In regards to claim 5, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160) is directly bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) without an intervening adhesive.
In regards to claim 6, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) by way of solder bonding.
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
In regards to claim 7, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) by way of adhesive bonding.
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
In regards to claim 8, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 160b plus 160c) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) by a thermal interface material (TIM) (item 160a).
In regards to claim 10, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 1-15) comprising: a first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); a second integrated device die (items 108 or 114) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); a heat block (item 160) directly bonded to the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) without an adhesive, wherein the heat flux through the heat block (item 160) is larger than that though the second integrated device die; and a heat sink (item 166) disposed over and directly bonded to at least the heat block (item 160) without an adhesive. The Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine various embodiments of Lee for the purpose of design choice.
Zhang discloses a thermal block (item 3, heat radiating gasket) that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of heat dissipation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In regards to claim 11, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) comprises a conductive thermal pathway to transfer heat from the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) to the heat sink (item 166).
In regards to claim 12, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) is configured to reduce a heat flow through the second integrated device die (items 108 or 114).
In regards to claim 13, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the second integrated device die (items 108 or 114) comprises silicon, and wherein a thermal conductivity of the heat block (item 160) is higher than that of silicon. Lee discloses broadly discloses semiconductor chips which encompasses silicon semiconductor chips. Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
In regards to claim 14, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang discloses wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the heat block is lower than 10 μm/m° C. Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
Zhang discloses a thermal block (item 3, heat radiating gasket) that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper, wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is less than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block is higher than 150 Wm.sup.−1 K.sup.−1 at room temperature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of heat dissipation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In regards to claims 15, 21 and 23, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) is laterally inset relative to an outer edge of the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212).
In regards to claim 17, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 1-15) comprising: a first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); a second integrated device die (item 108 or 114) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); a heat block (item 160) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212); and a heat sink (item 166) disposed over at least a bonding layer (items 120b, 122b) the heat block (item 160), wherein a heat flux through the heat block (item 160)is larger than that through the second integrated device die (item 108 or 114) during operation of the microelectronic device (Figs. 1-15).
In regards to claim 18, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang discloses wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the heat block (item 160) is lower than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the heat block (item 160) is higher than that of silicon. Examiner notes that the thermal block (item 160) of Lee can comprise diamond powder (paragraph 58), which is similar to the diamond block of the Applicant, and could therefore share the same intrinsic characteristics.
Zhang discloses a thermal block (item 3, heat radiating gasket) that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper, wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is less than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block is higher than 150 Wm.sup.−1 K.sup.−1 at room temperature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of heat dissipation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In regards to claim 20, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) is directly bonded to the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) without an adhesive.
In regards to claim 22, Lee (Figs. 1-15 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 160) is disposed over a heat-generating portion of the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212).
Claim(s) 1-9, 16-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (Sung) (US 2018/0175011 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang) (CN 11359154 A).
In regards to claim 1, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 2, 4) comprising: a first semiconductor element (items 100, 3100); at least one second semiconductor element (items 200, 300, 3200 or 3300) disposed on the first semiconductor element (item 100, 3100); and a thermal block (item 400, 3400) disposed on the first semiconductor element (item 100, 3100) and adjacent to the at least one second semiconductor element (items 200, 300, 3200 or 3300), the thermal block (item 400, 3400) comprising a conductive thermal pathway to transfer heat from the first semiconductor element (item 100, 3100) to a heat sink (items 600, 3600) disposed on and directly bonded to a bonding layer (not shown) of the thermal block (items 400, 3400), and wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block is higher than 150 Wm.sup.−1 K.sup.−1 at room temperature (paragraph 30), but does not specifically disclose wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is less than 10 μm/m° C., and
Zhang discloses a thermal block (item 3, heat radiating gasket) that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper, wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is less than 10 μm/m° C.. and wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block is higher than 150 Wm.sup.−1 K.sup.−1 at room temperature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of heat dissipation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In regards to claim 2, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (items 400, 3400) is configured to reduce a heat flow through the at least one second semiconductor element (items 200, 300, 3200 or 3300).
In regards to claim 3, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) does not specifically disclose wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is substantially similar to a CTE of the first semiconductor element. Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block (items 400, 3400) is substantially similar to a CTE of the second semiconductor element (item 200, 300, 3200 or 3300).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a thermal block made of material where a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the thermal block is substantially similar to a CTE of a semiconductor element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In regards to claim 4, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified Zhang discloses wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal block (items 400, 3400) is higher than that of the at least one second semiconductor element (items 200, 300, 3200, 3300).
In regards to claim 6, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 400, 3400) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 3100) by way of solder bonding.
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
In regards to claim 7, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 400, 3400) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 3100) by way of adhesive bonding (item 3410, paragraph 72).
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
In regards to claim 8, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the thermal block (item 400, 3400) is bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 3100) by a thermal interface material (TIM) (item 3410, paragraph 72).
In regard to claim 9, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one second semiconductor element is directly hybrid bonded to the first semiconductor element without an intervening adhesive.
In regard to claim 16, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein the second integrated device die is directly bonded to the first integrated device die without an adhesive.
In regard to claim 19, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein the second integrated device die is directly bonded to the first integrated device die without an adhesive.
In regard to claims 9, 16, 19, Jung (Fig. 4 and associated text) discloses wherein the second integrated device die/semiconductor element (item 130) is directly bonded to the first integrated device die/structure (item 110) without an adhesive.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jung for the purpose of a mechanical and electrical connection.
In regards to claims 21 and 23, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang discloses wherein the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is laterally inset relative to an outer edge of the first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung, item 110, Jung).
In regards to claim 17, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang and discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 2, 4) comprising: a first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung,); a second integrated device die (items 200, 300, 3200 or 3300, Sung,) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung,); a heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung,); and a heat sink (item 600, 3600, Sung) disposed over and directly bonded to at least a bonding layer (not shown) of the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper), wherein a heat flux through the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is larger than that through the second integrated device die (items 200, 300, 3200 or 3300, Sung,) during operation of the microelectronic device (Figs. 2, 4).
In regards to claim 18, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang discloses wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is lower than 10 μm/m° C., and wherein a thermal conductivity of the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of heat dissipation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In regards to claim 20, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang and Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is directly bonded to the first integrated device die (item 100, 200, 200 plus 212 or 100 plus 200 plus 212) without an adhesive.
Claim(s) 5, 10-15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (Sung) (US 2018/0175011 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang) (CN 11359154 A) as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-8 above and further in view of Jung et al. (Jung) (US 2019/0148256 A1)
In regards to claim 5, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein the thermal block (item 400, 3400) is directly bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 100, 3100) without an intervening adhesive.
Jung discloses wherein the thermal block (item 140) is directly bonded to the first semiconductor element (item 110) without an intervening adhesive.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jung for the purpose of heat dissipation.
In regards to claim 10, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang and Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses a microelectronic device (Figs. 2, 4) comprising: a first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung, 100, Jung); a second integrated device die (items 200, 300, 3200, 3300, Sung, item 130 on the left or right, Jung) disposed on the first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung, item 110, Jung); a heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) directly bonded to the first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung, item 110, Jung) without an adhesive, wherein the heat flux through the heat block (items 400, 3400) is larger than that though the second integrated device die (items 200, 300, 3200, 3300); and a heat sink (item 3600, Sung) disposed over and directly bonded to at least the heat block (items 400, 3400, Sung) without an adhesive.
In regards to claim 11, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang and Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) comprises a conductive thermal pathway to transfer heat from the first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, 110, Sung) to the heat sink (items 600, 3600, Sung).
In regards to claim 12, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang and Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is configured to reduce a heat flow through the second integrated device die (items 200, 300, 3200 or 3300, Sung, item 130 on the left or right, Jung).
In regards to claim 13, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the second integrated device die (items 200, 300, 3200 or 3300, Sung) comprises silicon (paragraph 29), and wherein a thermal conductivity of the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is higher than that of silicon.
In regards to claim 14, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang and Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is lower than 10 μm/m° C..
In regards to claims 15, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang and Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is laterally inset relative to an outer edge of the first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung, item 110, Jung).
In regards to claim 22, Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) as modified by Zhang and Sung (Figs. 2, 4 and associated text and items) discloses wherein the heat block (item 400, 3400, Sung, item 140, Jung, item 3, Zhang, heat radiating gasket that can be made of molybdenum copper, tungsten copper or diamond copper) is disposed over a heat-generating portion of the first integrated device die (item 100, 3100, Sung, 100, Jung).
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 TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 January 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights