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 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, 11, 16 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.
The limitation “the crack stiffener is selectively provided in the edge region” has no written description in the specification of the instant application regarding the phrase “selectively provided”. It is recommended that this limitation be amended to “the crack stiffener is
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.
Claims 1, 11, 16 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.
The limitation “the crack stiffener is selectively provided in the edge region”, specifically the phrase “selectively provided” in unclear and indefinite as to what selectively means in this context. It is recommended that this limitation be amended to “the crack stiffener is
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.
(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.
Claims 1-10, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kweon et al (US Publication 20190318994).
Regarding claim 1, Kweon teaches a package comprising:
a lower substrate (Fig. 8, 820);
a lower chip provided on the lower substrate (Fig. 8, 860);
posts provided on an edge of the lower substrate and outside of the lower chip (Fig. 8, 840);
an upper substrate provided on the posts and the lower chip, the upper substrate having a cavity on a bottom surface of the upper substrate (Fig. 8, cavity substrate 880 and cavities 906); and
a crack stiffener provided at an edge of the cavity (cavity layer 900, para 29),
wherein the cavity has a center region on the lower chip and an edge region outside the center region (Fig. 8, center of cavity above center of 860 and edges of cavity above and outside of 860 projection),
wherein the crack stiffener is selectively provided in the edge region to reduce formation of a crack in the edge region of the upper substrate (Fig. 8, cavity layer 900 at edge of cavity above 860, para 29), and
wherein the crack stiffener comprises an inclined surface inclined in a direction intersecting directions parallel an upper surface and a side surface of the lower chip (Fig. 8, cavity layer 900 with incline in a direction intersecting directions parallel an upper surface of 860).
Regarding claim 2, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener has a thickness that is the same as a depth of the cavity (Fig. 8, cavity 906 defined by 900 of 880 where 900 is as thick as the cavity in 880, para 39).
Regarding claim 3, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 2 upon which claim 3 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener has a tetragonal shape (Fig 1-3, 130 including 135 and 137 depicted as rectangular prism).
Regarding claim 4, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 3 upon which claim 4 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener comprises: linear stiffeners corresponding to sides of the tetragonal shape; and corner stiffeners provided at vertices of the tetragonal shape and connecting the linear stiffeners to each other (Fig. 2 and 3, linear and corner portions of shape defined by 130, 135, and 137).
Regarding claim 5, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 4 upon which claim 5 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein each of the linear stiffeners have a width that is greater than the depth of the cavity (Fig. 1-3, shape defined by 130, 135, and 137).
Regarding claim 6, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 4 upon which claim 6 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein each of the linear stiffeners have a width that is less than half of a width of the cavity (Fig. 1-3, shape defined by 130, 135, and 137).
Regarding claim 7, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 4 upon which claim 7 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the linear stiffeners have a width of about 10 µm to about 5 mm (Fig. 1A-D, 19, para 36).
Regarding claim 8, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener comprises a resin (para 29).
Regarding claim 9, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 8 upon which claim 9 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener further comprises an epoxy (para 29).
Regarding claim 10, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 10 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener has a triangular sectional shape (Fig. 8, triangular shape of 900 at edge of cavity).
Regarding claim 16, Kweon teaches a method of fabricating a package, the method comprising:
forming posts on an edge of a lower substrate (Fig. 8, 840);
mounting a lower chip on a center of the lower substrate and between the posts (Fig. 8, 860 between 840s);
forming a cavity on a bottom surface of an upper substrate, the cavity having a center region on the lower chip and an edge region outside the center region (Fig. 8, center of cavity above center of 860 and edges of cavity above and outside of 860 projection);
forming a crack stiffener at an edge of the cavity (cavity layer 900, para 29); and
providing the upper substrate on the lower chip (Fig. 8, 880),
wherein the crack stiffener is selectively provided in the edge region to reduce formation of a crack in the edge region of the upper substrate (Fig. 8, center of cavity above center of 860 and edges of cavity above and outside of 860 projection), and
wherein the crack stiffener comprises an inclined surface inclined in a direction intersecting directions parallel an upper surface and a side surface of the lower chip (Fig. 8, cavity layer 900 with incline in a direction intersecting directions parallel an upper surface of 860).
Regarding claim 17, Kweon teaches the limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 17 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener has a width that is greater than a depth of the cavity and less than half of a width of the cavity (Fig. 1-3, shape defined by 130, 135, and 137 ).
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.
Claims 11-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon et al (US Publication 20190318994) in view of Kumar et al ( US Patent 9947642).
Regarding claim 11, Kweon teaches a package comprising:
a lower substrate (Fig. 8, 820);
a lower chip provided on the lower substrate (Fig. 8, 860);
posts provided on the lower substrate and outside the lower chip (Fig. 8, 840);
an upper substrate provided on the posts and the lower chip, the upper substrate having a cavity positioned over the lower chip, the cavity having a center region on the lower chip and an edge region outside the center region (Fig. 8, cavity substrate 880 and cavities 906 centered over chip 860);
a crack stiffener provided at the edge region of the cavity below the upper chip,
wherein the crack stiffener is selectively provided in the edge region to reduce formation of a crack in the edge region of the upper substrate (Fig. 8, cavity layer 900 at edge of cavity above 860, para 29), and
wherein the crack stiffener comprises an inclined surface inclined in a direction intersecting directions parallel an upper surface and a side surface of the lower chip (Fig. 8, cavity layer 900 with incline in a direction intersecting directions parallel an upper surface of 860).
Kweon does not specifically teach:
an upper chip provided on the upper substrate and positioned over the cavity.
Kumar teaches an upper chip provided on the upper substrate (Fig. 2, upper chip 211 on substrate 202) and positioned over the cavity (Fig. 2, cavity centered over chip 211);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Kweon to include an upper chip provided on the upper substrate as taught by Kweon in order to improve the operability and applicability of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Kweon as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 upon which claim X depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the lower chip comprises an application processor chip (para 40).
Kweon does not specifically teach:
wherein the upper chip comprises a memory chip.
Kumar teaches wherein the upper chip comprises a memory chip (column 5, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Kweon to include an upper chip comprising a memory chip as taught by Kweon in order to improve the operability and applicability of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Kweon as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 upon which claim X depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener comprises: linear stiffeners; and corner stiffeners provided between the linear stiffeners (Fig. 2 and 3, linear and corner portions of shape defined by 130, 135, and 137).
Regarding claim 14, Kweon as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13 upon which claim X depends.
Kweon teaches wherein each of the linear stiffeners have a width that is greater than a depth of the cavity and less than half of a width of the cavity (Fig. 1-3, shape defined by 130, 135, and 137 ).
Regarding claim 15, Kweon as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 upon which claim 15 depends.
Kweon teaches wherein the crack stiffener has a triangular sectional shape (Fig. 8, triangular shape of 900 at edge of cavity).
Regarding claim 18, Kweon as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 18 depends.
Kweon does not specifically teach forming spacers on the lower chip; wherein the upper substrate is provided on the lower substrate, the lower chip, the posts, and the spacers.
Kumar teaches forming spacers on the lower chip; wherein the upper substrate is provided on the lower substrate, the lower chip, the posts, and the spacers (Fig. 2, 270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Kweon to include spacers as taught by Kweon in order to improve the structural integrity and mechanical robustness of the device.
Regarding claim 19, Kweon as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18 upon which claim 19 depends.
Kweon as modified teaches wherein the crack stiffener is provided outside the spacers (cavity layer 900, para 29).
Regarding claim 20, Kweon as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18 upon which claim 20 depends.
Kweon does not specifically teach further comprising mounting an upper chip on the upper substrate and over the cavity.
Kumar teaches further comprising mounting an upper chip on the upper substrate and over the cavity (Fig. 2, upper chip 211 on substrate 202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Kweon to include an upper chip provided on the upper substrate as taught by Kweon in order to improve the operability and applicability of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 14, and 17 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. Kweon and Kumar are newly cited references.
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 NICHOLAS HUTSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1750. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571 272 2266. 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.
/NICHOLAS LELAND HUTSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818