DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the TIM" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes the examiner is treating claim 20 as depending from claim 18 (see 103 rejection of claim 20 below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904).
Re claim 1, Seidemann teaches a package structure (Fig. 2), comprising: a first die (11) and a second die (12), the first die (11) and the second die (12) coupled to a bridge structure (10) at an interface (116); a first mold material (120) on a first side (“top side”) of the interface (116) and surrounding the first die (11) and the second die (12); and a second mold material (110) on a second, opposing side (“bottom side”) of the interface (116) and surrounding the bridge structure (10).
Re claim 5, Seidemann teaches the package structure of claim 1, wherein a first portion (“right portion”) of the first die (11) is coupled to the bridge structure (10) by one or more single pitch solder interconnect structures (121’).
Re claim 6, Seidemann teaches the package structure of claim 5, wherein a second portion (“left portion”) of the first die (11) is coupled to a substrate (13) by one or more conductive via structures (123’).
Re claim 11, Seidemann teaches the package structure of claim 1, wherein the bridge structure (10) comprises one of a silicon material [17] or a glass material.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Song et al. (2022/0068818).
Re claim 2, Seidemann teaches the package structure of claim 1, Seidemann does not explicitly teach wherein a dielectric material is between the first mold material and the second mold material.
Song teaches a semiconductor package (Fig. 6) wherein a dielectric material (RD2) is between a first mold material (MD2) and the second mold material (MD1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann as taught by Song since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Re claim 3, Seidemann in view of Song teaches the package structure of claim 2, wherein an underfill material (UF2, Song) is below the first mold material (MD2, Song) and adjacent the dielectric material (RD2, Song). Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Song et al. (2022/0068818) as applied to claims 2-3 above and further in view of Pietambaram et al. (2020/0258847). Re claim 4, Seidemann in view of Song teaches the package structure of claim 3.
Seidemann in view of Song does not explicitly teach wherein the underfill material is between the first die and the bridge structure.
Pietambaram teaches a semiconductor package (Fig. 2B) wherein an underfill material (211) is between a first die (210A) and a bridge structure (230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann in view of Song as taught by Pietambaram since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Eid et al. (2019/0214328).
Re claim 7, Seidemann teaches the package structure of claim 1.
Seidemann does not explicitly teach wherein the first mold material comprises aluminum particles.
Eid teaches a stacked die package (Fig. 2) wherein a first mold material (114) comprises aluminum particles [32].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann as taught by Eid and have the mold material comprise aluminum particles in order to achieve improved thermal conductivity ([32], Eid). Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Liu et al. (2020/0365421).
Re claim 8, Seidemann teaches the package structure of claim 1.
Seidemann does not explicitly teach wherein the first mold material comprises a thermally conductive filler.
Liu teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 1A-G) wherein a first mold material (108) comprises a thermally conductive filler [34].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann as taught by Liu and have the mold material comprise a thermally conductive filler in order to provide a heat conductive path to prevent chip overheating ([34], Liu).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Dhane et al. (2020/0203254).
Re claim 9, Seidemann teaches the package structure of claim 1.
Seidemann does not explicitly teach wherein a planar thermal interface material (TIM) is on the first mold material over the first and second die, and an integrated heat spreader (IHS) is on the TIM. Dhane teaches a package structure (Figs. 1 & 1’) wherein a planar thermal interface material (TIM) (128) is on a mold material (110) over a die (108), and an integrated heat spreader (IHS) (116) is on the TIM (128). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann as taught by Dhane since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made. Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of the following reasons. Re claim 10, Seidemann teaches the package structure of claim 1. Seidemann does not explicitly teach wherein a height of the first die is different than a height of the second die.
However, Applicant has not shown wherein a height of the first die is different than a height of the second die has a specific, disclosed criticality that is unexpected and would not have been determined through routine experimentation of one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the height of the dies so as to customize, optimize, or otherwise meet customer space and design requirements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Dhane et al. (2020/0203254).
Re claim 12, Seidemann teaches a package structure (Fig. 2), comprising: a first die (11) and a second die (12), the first die (11) and the second die (12) coupled to a bridge structure (10) at an interface (116); a first mold material (120) surrounding the first die (11) and the second die (12); a second mold material (110) surrounding the bridge structure (10). Seidemann does not explicitly teach a thermal interface material (TIM) over the first mold material; and an integrated heat spreader (IHS) on the TIM. Dhane teaches a package structure (Figs. 1 & 1’) comprising a thermal interface material (TIM) (128) over a mold material (110); and an integrated heat spreader (IHS) (116) on the TIM (128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann as taught by Dhane since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Re claim 13, Seidemann in view of Dhane teaches the package structure of claim 12, wherein the TIM (128, Dhane) comprises a planar surface over the first mold material (Fig. 1’, Dhane).
Re claim 14, Seidemann in view of Dhane teaches the package structure of claim 12, wherein the IHS (116, Dhane) is coupled to a substrate (104, Dhane). Re claim 15, Seidemann in view of Dhane teaches the package structure of claim 14, wherein the first die (11, Seidemann) comprises a first portion (121’, Seidemann) coupled to the bridge structure (10, Seidemann) and a second portion (123’) coupled to the substrate (13, Seidemann).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Dhane et al. (2020/0203254) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Liu et al. (2020/0365421). Re claim 16, Seidemann in view of Dhane teaches the package structure of claim 12. Seidemann in view of Dhane does not explicitly teach wherein the first mold material comprises a thermally conductive filler material.
Liu teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 1A-G) wherein a first mold material (108) comprises a thermally conductive filler [34].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann in view of Dhane as taught by Liu and have the mold material comprise a thermally conductive filler in order to provide a heat conductive path to prevent chip overheating ([34], Liu).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Pietambaram et al. (2020/0258847). Re claim 17, Seidemann teaches a method (Figs. 1A-B, 2 and 2C-D), comprising: a die (11) having a first side (“lower side”); forming a first mold material (120) over the die (11); coupling a bridge structure (10) to the first side (“lower side”) of the die (11); and forming a second mold material (110) on the bridge structure (10).
Seidemann does not explicitly teach placing a first side of a die on a carrier; removing the first carrier and placing a second carrier over a second side of the die. Pietambaram teaches a method (Figs. 5A-E) comprising placing a first side (“lower side”) of a die on a carrier (570); removing the first carrier [95] and placing a second carrier (580) over a second side (“top side”) of the die (507).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann as taught by Pietambaram since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made. Claim(s) 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Pietambaram et al. (2020/0258847) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Dhane et al. (2020/0203254).
Re claim 18, Seidemann in view of Pietambaram teaches the method of claim 17.
Seidemann in view of Pietambaram does not explicitly teach further comprising forming a planar thermal interface material (TIM) on the first mold material.
Dhane teaches a method (Figs. 1 & 1’) wherein a planar thermal interface material (TIM) (128) is on a mold material (110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann in view of Pietambaram as taught by Dhane since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Re claim 20, Seidemann in view of Pietambaram and Dhane teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising placing an integrated heat spreader (116, Dhane) on the TIM (128, Dhane). Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidemann et al. (2019/0287904) in view of Pietambaram et al. (2020/0258847) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Liu et al. (2020/0365421). Re claim 19, Seidemann in view of Pietambaram teaches the method of claim 17.
Seidemann in view of Pietambaram does not explicitly teach wherein forming the first mold material comprises forming a thermally conductive material comprising a filler.
Liu teaches a method (Figs. 1A-G) wherein a first mold material (108) comprises a thermally conductive filler [34].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seidemann in view of Pietambaram as taught by Liu and have the mold material comprise a thermally conductive filler in order to provide a heat conductive path to prevent chip overheating ([34], Liu).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S BOWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/ADAM S BOWEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897