DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments, filed 7/30/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Rejection over Lai et al., US 2021/0305122
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Lai et al., US 2021/0305122.
Regarding claim 1, Lai (figure 1) teaches a package architecture, comprising:
a package substrate 200;
a bridge 110-C over the package substrate 200, wherein the bridge 110-C includes conductive routing;
a first dummy bridge 120 over the package substrate 200; and
a second dummy bridge 130 over the package substrate 200, wherein the first dummy bridge 120 and the second dummy bridge 130 are positioned symmetrically about the bridge 110-C, and wherein the bridge 110-C, the first dummy bridge 120 and the second dummy bridge 130 are in a same horizontal plane (all three attach to the top of the package substrate 200 therefore they are in the same horizontal plane).
The components 120 and 130 are considered dummy bridges because they are not bridges. Since they are not bridges they can be considered as dummies.
With respect to claim 4, Lai (figure 1) teaches a first die 110-A over the package substrate 200; and a second die 100-B over the package substrate 200, wherein the first die 110-A is communicatively coupled to the second die 110-B by the conductive routing in the bridge 110-C.
As to claim 5, Lai (figure 1) teaches the first dummy bridge 120 and the second dummy bridge 130 are outside footprints of the first die 110-A and the second die 110-B.
In re claim 7, Lai (figure 1) teaches a dimension of the bridge 110-C is different than similar dimensions of the first dummy bridge 120 and the second dummy bridge 130.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al., US 2021/0305122, as applied to claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 2, though Lai, which teaches the dies 110, 120 and 130 can be the same type of dies or different dies (paragraph 0012), fails to specifically teach the first dummy bridge and the second dummy bridge comprise silicon or glass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to glass or silicon in the invention of Lai because they are conventionally known and used die materials. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 3, though Lai, which teaches the dies 110, 120 and 130 can be the same type of dies or different dies (paragraph 0012), fails to specifically teach the first dummy bridge and the second dummy bridge comprise the same material as the bridge, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to glass or silicon in the invention of Lai because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al., US 2021/0305122, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho et al., US 11,315,881.
Lai fails to teach the bridge, the first dummy bridge, and the second dummy bridge are located in cavities in the package substrate.
Ho teaches the bridge 21, the first dummy bridge 68, and the second dummy bridge 68 are located in cavities in the package substrate 6b’.
Though the dummy bridges of Ho are different from the dummy bridges of Lai, a skilled artisan would see the benefits, such as protection and a lower profile structure, of Ho and apply them to Lai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cavities of Ho in the invention of Lai because Ho teaches a known alternative structure. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Claim(s) 8, 10-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al., US 2021/0305122, in view of Meyer-Berg, US 7,498,674.
In claim 8, Lai (figure 1) teaches an electronic package, comprising:
a package substrate 200;
a plurality of dies 110-A/110-B over the package substrate 200;
a bridge 110-C over the package substrate 200, wherein the bridge 110-C are at least partially within footprints of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B, and wherein the bridge communicatively couple the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B together; and
a plurality of dummy bridges 140/150 over the package substrate 200, wherein the plurality of dummy bridges 140/150 are entirely outside of footprints of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B, and wherein the bridge bridge and the plurality of dummy bridges 140/150 are in a same horizontal plane (all three 110/120/130 attach to the top of the package substrate 200 therefore they are in the same horizontal plane).
The components 140 and 150 are considered dummy bridges because they are not bridges. Since they are not bridges they can be considered as dummies.
Lai fails to teach a plurality of bridges.
Meyer-Berg (figure 8) teaches a plurality of bridges 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a plurality of bridges 1 of Meyer-Berg in the invention of Lai because Meyer-Berg teaches a known alternative type of bridge. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 11, though Lai fails to specifically teach the first dummy bridge 140 and the second dummy bridge 150 comprise silicon or glass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to glass or silicon in the invention of Lai because they are conventionally known and used die materials. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 12, Lai (figure 3) teaches the plurality of dummy bridges 140/150 are symmetrically oriented with respect to the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B.
As to claim 13, Lai (figure 3) teaches the plurality of dummy bridges 140/150 are along a first edge of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B and a second edge of the plurality of dies 10-A/110-B.
In re claim 14, Lai (figure 3) teaches the first edge is opposite from the second edge.
Concerning claim 15, Lai (figure 3) teaches the plurality of dummy bridges 140/150 are along a first edge of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B, a second edge of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B, a third edge of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B, and a fourth edge of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B.
Pertaining to claim 16, Lai (figure 3) teaches a pair of dummy bridges 140/150 are along each of the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B.
In claim 18, Lai (figure 3) teaches first level interconnect (FLI) structures 1107 between the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B and the package substrate 200 are aligned with FLI pads (where 1107 attaches to 200) on the package substrate 200.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al., US 2021/0305122, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ho et al., US 11,315,881.
Regarding claim 16, Lai fails to teach the bridge, the first dummy bridge, and the second dummy bridge are located in cavities in the package substrate.
Ho teaches the bridge 21, the first dummy bridge 68, and the second dummy bridge 68 are located in cavities in the package substrate 6b’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cavities of Ho in the invention of Lai because Ho teaches a known alternative structure. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Rejection over Ho et al., US 11,315,881
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Ho et al., US 11,315,881.
With respect to claim 1, Ho (figures 2F-3 & 6B) teaches a package architecture, comprising:
a package substrate 6b’;
a bridge 21 over the package substrate 6b’, wherein the bridge 21 includes conductive routing 210;
a first dummy bridge 68 over the package substrate 6b’; and
a second dummy bridge 68 over the package substrate 6b’, wherein the first dummy bridge 68 and the second dummy bridge 68 are positioned symmetrically about the bridge 21, and wherein the bridge 21, the first dummy bridge 68 and the second dummy bridge 68 are in a same horizontal plane.
As to claim 4, Ho (figures 2F-3 & 6B) teaches a first die 22 over the package substrate 6b’; and a second die 22’ over the package substrate 6b’, wherein the first die 22 is communicatively coupled to the second die 22’ by the conductive routing in the bridge 21.
In re claim 6, Ho (figures 2F-3 & 6B) teaches the bridge 21, the first dummy bridge 68, and the second dummy bridge 68 are located in cavities in the package substrate 6b’.
Concerning claim 7, Ho (figures 2F-3 & 6B) teaches a dimension of the bridge 21 is different than similar dimensions of the first dummy bridge 68 and the second dummy bridge 68.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al., US 11,315,881, as applied to claim 1 above.
Pertaining to claim 2, though Ho, which teaches the dummy bridges 68 could be a dummy die (column 14, lines 53-58), fails to teach the first dummy bridge 68 and the second dummy bridge 68 comprise silicon or glass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use silicon in the invention of Ho because it is a conventionally known and used dummy die material. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 3, though Ho, which teaches the dummy bridges 68 could be a dummy die (column 14, lines 53-58), fails to teach the first dummy bridge and the second dummy bridge comprise the same material as the bridge, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use silicon for the dummy bridges and the bridge in the invention of Ho because silicon is a conventionally known and used dummy die and bridge material. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, though Ho (figures 2F-3 & 6B) fails to teach the first dummy bridge 68 and the second dummy bridge 68 are outside footprints of the first die 22 and the second die 22’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Ho because it is a known equivalent structure. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Claim(s) 8, and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al., US 11,315,881, in view of Lai et al., US 2021/0305122.
With respect to claim 8, Ho (figures 2F-3 & 6B) teaches an electronic package, comprising:
a package substrate 6b’;
a plurality of dies 22/22’ over the package substrate 6b’;
a plurality of bridges 21 over the package substrate 6b’, wherein the plurality of bridges 21 are at least partially within footprints of the plurality of dies 22/22’, and wherein the plurality of bridges 21 communicatively couple the plurality of dies 22/22’ together; and
a plurality of dummy bridges 68 over the package substrate 6b’, and wherein the plurality of bridges 21 bridge and the plurality of dummy bridges 68 are in a same horizontal plane.
Ho fails to teach the plurality of dummy bridges 68 are entirely outside of footprints of the plurality of dies 22/22’.
Lai (figure 10) teaches dummy bridges, reinforcement structure 300 of Lai, is entirely outside of footprints of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the dummy bridges, reinforcement structure 300 of Lai, of in the invention of Ho’s dummy bridges, reinforcement structure 68, because Lai teaches a known alternative placement. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Though Lai’s 300 is a frame type structure, a skilled artisan would consider using the general concept of putting Ho’s dummy bridges entirely outside of footprints of the plurality of dies 110-A/110-B.
As to claim 10, Ho (column 14, lines 53-58) teaches the dummy bridges 68 do not include any conductive routing.
In re claim 11, though Ho fails to teach the plurality of dummy bridges comprise glass or silicon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these materials in the invention of Ho because they are conventionally known and used dummy materials. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 12, Ho (figure 6B) teaches the plurality of dummy bridges 68 are symmetrically oriented with respect to the plurality of dies 22/22’.
Pertaining to claim 13, Ho (figure 6B) teaches the plurality of dummy bridges are along a first edge of the plurality of dies 22/22’ and a second edge of the plurality of dies 22/22’.
In claim 14, Ho (figure 6B) teaches the first edge is opposite from the second edge.
Regarding claim 15, though Ho, which teaches they can be placed in order to reduce warpage (column 14, lines 53-58), fails to teach the plurality of second dummy bridges are along a first edge of the plurality of dies, a second edge of the plurality of dies, a third edge of the plurality of dies, and a fourth edge of the plurality of dies, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the dummy bridge location through routine experimentation in order to maximize the warpage reduction (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 16, though Ho, which teaches they can be placed in order to reduce warpage (column 14, lines 53-58), fails to teach a pair of dummy bridges are along each of the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge of the plurality of dies, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the dummy bridge location through routine experimentation in order to maximize the warpage reduction (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 17, Ho (figure 6B) teaches the plurality of bridges 21 and the plurality of dummy bridges 68 are positioned in cavities in the package substrate 6b’.
In re claim 18, wherein first level interconnect (FLI) structures (connectors between 22/22’ and 20) between the plurality of dies 22/22’ and the package substrate 6b’are aligned with FLI pads (pads on 20 facing dies 22/22’) on the package substrate 6b’.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al., US 11,315,881.
Regarding claim 19, Ho (figure 6B) teaches an electronic system, comprising:
a board (attached to bottom of 27);
a package substrate 6b’ coupled (through 24) to the board (attached to bottom of 27);
a bridge 21 in the package substrate 6b’, wherein the bridge 21 comprise conductive routing 210;
a plurality of dummy bridges 68 in the package substrate 6b’, wherein the plurality of dummy bridges 68 are symmetrically positioned with respect to the bridge 21, and wherein the bridge 21 bridge and the plurality of dummy bridges 68 are in a same horizontal plane; and
a plurality of dies 22/22’ coupled to the package substrate 6b’, wherein the bridge 21 communicatively couple together the plurality of dies 22/22’.
Ho (figure 6b) fails to teach a plurality of bridges.
Ho (figure 2F-3) teaches a plurality of bridges 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the alternative embodiment of figure 2F-3 having plurality of bridges in the invention of Ho (figure 6B) because Ho these are various embodiments in Ho that would be used in combination. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
With respect to claim 20, though Ho (figure 6B0 fails to teach the plurality of dummy bridges 68 are outside a footprint of the plurality of dies 22/22’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this alternative embodiment in the invention of Ho because it is a known equivalent structure. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
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 DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 8/17/26
Prosecution Insights