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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 23rd, 2026 has been entered.
By this amendment, claims 1 and 11 have been amended, claims 16-20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-25 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending in the present application in which claims 1, 7, and 11 are in independent form.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on January 23rd, 2026 has been considered.
New Grounds of Rejection
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) 1-6, 9-12, 14, 15, 21, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0185352) in view of Kwon (U.S. Pub. 2022/0068896).
In re claim 1, Lee discloses a package, comprising: a lower substrate 110 (see paragraph [0024] and fig. 2), the lower substrate 110 comprising an upper pad 114 and a lower photo-imageable dielectric layer 112, the lower photo-imageable dielectric layer 112 overlapping the upper pad along a first direction and being in contact with the upper pad (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2); a lower chip 130 on the lower substrate 110 (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 5); a mold layer 142 on the lower chip 130 and the lower substrate 110 (see paragraph [0044] and fig. 9); a post extending through the mold layer and provided on the upper pad around the lower chip, the post 122 having a diameter less than a diameter of the upper pad (see paragraph [0039] and fig.6); and an upper substrate 150 on the post 122 and an upper surface of the mold layer 142 (see paragraph [0046] and fig. 9), the upper substrate 150 comprising a lower pad 154 having a diameter greater than the diameter of the post 122 (see paragraph [0047] and fig. 9), and an upper insulating layer 152 overlapping the lower pad along the first direction, wherein the first direction is parallel to the upper surface of the mold layer 142, and wherein the upper pad 114 is at an interface between the lower photo-imageable dielectric layer 112 and the mold layer 142, and the upper pad 114 overlaps both the lower photo-imageable dielectric layer 112 and the mold layer 142 along the first direction (see paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0044] and fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee is silent to wherein the upper insulating layer is a photo-imageable dielectric layer.
However, Kwon discloses in a same field of endeavor, a package, including, inter-alia, an upper substrate 100 on the post 306 and an upper surface of the mold layer 302, the upper substrate 100 comprising a lower pad LP having a diameter greater than the diameter of the post, and an upper photo-imageable dielectric layer 111 overlapping the lower pad LP along the first direction (see paragraph [0022], [0025] and fig. 15).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Kwon into the package of Lee in order to replace the upper insulating layer in the package of Lee with a photo-imageable dielectric material 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 it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the 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 one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the upper pad and the lower pad have a common diameter (see paragraphs [0022], [0077], [0081] and fig. 15 of Kwon).
In re claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the upper pad 114, the post 122, and the lower pad 154 are connected to form an "I" shape when viewed in vertical section (see paragraphs [0025], [0031], [0047] and fig. 9 of Lee).
In re claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee and Kwon are silent to wherein the diameter of the lower pad is greater by 10 µm to 20 µm than the diameter of the post.
However, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art during routine experimentation to optimize the diameter of the lower pad and the post so that the diameter of the lower pad is greater by 10 µm to 20 µm than the diameter of the post since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the lower substrate 110 further comprises a lower redistribution layer connected to the upper pad 114 (see paragraph [0024] and fig. 9 of Lee), wherein the upper substrate 150 further comprises an upper redistribution layer connected to the lower pad 154 (see paragraph [0046] and fig. 9), and wherein each of the lower redistribution layer and the upper redistribution layer has a "T" shape (see fig. 9 of Lee).
In re claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the package further comprising an intermediate pad 304 on
a middle portion of the post 306, wherein the post 306, the lower pad LP, and the intermediate pad 304 are connected to form a "Ŧ" shape when viewed in vertical section (see paragraphs [0077], [0081] and fig. 15 of Kwon).
In re claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the lower pad LP has a tail that surrounds the post 306 (see paragraph [0081] and fig. 15 of Kwon).
In re claim 10, as applied to claim 9 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the post 306, the lower pad LP, and the tail are connected to form a “T” shape when viewed in vertical section (see paragraph [0081] and fig. 15 of Kwon).
In re claim 11, Lee discloses a package, comprising: a lower substrate 110, the lower substrate 110 comprising an upper pad 114 (see paragraph [0024] and fig. 9), and a lower photo- imageable dielectric layer 112, the lower photo-imageable dielectric layer 112 overlapping the upper pad along a first direction and being in contact with the upper pad (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 9); a lower chip 130 on the lower substrate 110 (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 9); a mold layer 142 on the lower chip and the lower substrate 110 (see paragraph [0044] and fig. 9); a post 122 on the upper pad 114, the post 122 having a diameter less than a diameter of the upper pad 114 (see paragraph [0030] and fig. 9); and an upper substrate 150 on an upper surface of the post 122, the upper substrate 150 comprising a lower pad 154 having a diameter greater than the diameter of the post 122 (see paragraph [0046] and fig. 9), and an insulating layer 152 overlapping the lower pad 154 along a direction parallel to the upper surface of the post 122 (see paragraph [0046] and fig. 9), wherein the upper pad 114, the post 122, and the lower pad 154 are connected to form an "I" shape when viewed in vertical section, and
wherein the upper pad 114 is at an interface between the lower photo-imageable dielectric layer 112 and the mold layer 142, and the upper pad 114 overlaps both the lower photo-imageable dielectric layer 112 and the mold layer 142 along the first direction (see paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0044] and fig. 9).
Lee is silent to wherein the insulating layer is a photo-imageable dielectric layer.
However, Kwon discloses in a same field of endeavor, a package, including, inter-alia, an upper substrate 100 on the post 306 and an upper surface of the mold layer 302, the upper substrate 100 comprising a lower pad LP having a diameter greater than the diameter of the post, and an upper photo-imageable dielectric layer 111 overlapping the lower pad LP along the first direction (see paragraph [0022], [0025] and fig. 15).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Kwon into the package of Lee in order to replace the insulating layer in the package of Lee with a photo-imageable dielectric material 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 it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the 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 one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the package further comprising an intermediate pad 304 on a middle portion of the post 306, wherein the post 306, the lower pad LP, and the intermediate pad 304 are connected to form a "Ŧ" shape when viewed in vertical section (see paragraphs [0077], [0081] and fig. 15) of Kwon).
In re claim 14, as applied to claim 11 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the lower pad LP has a tail that surrounds a contour of the post 306, and wherein the post 306, the lower pad LP, and the tail are connected to form a "Ŧ" shape when viewed in vertical section (see paragraph [0081] and fig. 15 of Kwon).
In re claim 15, as applied to claim 11 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the lower substrate 110 further comprises a lower redistribution layer connected to the upper pad 114, wherein the upper substrate 150 further comprises an upper redistribution layer connected to the lower pad 154, and wherein each of the lower redistribution layer and the upper redistribution layer has a "T" shape (see paragraphs [0024], [0046] and fig. 9 of Lee).
In re claim 21, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the package further comprising a warpage control pattern 255 on the upper surface of the mold layer 142, wherein the warpage control pattern 255 overlaps the lower chip 130 along a vertical direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the mold layer 142 (see paragraph [0061] and fig. 16, note that, part of the interconnection pattern 255 above the lower chip take part in controlling warpage for the chip package).
In re claims 23 and 24, as applied to claim 21 above, Lee and Kwon are silent to wherein the warpage control pattern has a mesh shape when viewed in plan and wherein the warpage control pattern has a dot shape when viewed in plan.
However, it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shapes of the warpage control pattern was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In re claim 25, as applied to claim 11 above, Lee in combination with Kwon discloses wherein the package further comprising a warpage control pattern 255 on an upper surface of the mold layer 142, wherein the warpage control pattern 255 overlaps the lower chip 130 along a vertical direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the mold layer 142 (see paragraph [0061] and fig. 16, note that, part of the interconnection pattern 255 above the lower chip take part in controlling warpage for the chip package).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 13 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
It is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claim 7 as a whole taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “a shield between the intermediate pad and the lower pad", as recited in independent claim 7.
Claim 8 is allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claim 7.
Response to Applicant’s Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 14, 15, 21, and 23-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892