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 Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, Species V, Fig. 6E, claims 1-5 & 10-17 in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 & 10-17 are being examined in this Office Action. Claims 6-9 & 18-20 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. Applicant is suggested/reminded to disclose relevant prior art(s) or other information that may be material to the patentability of the invention in a pending application. The prior art information must be submitted in the form of an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”) (see MPEP 609 & 2001 and 37 CFR 1.56).
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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2005/0258336).
Re claim 1, Chen teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-2, [0021, 0030], a multi-die module, comprising:
-a first die (2);
-a second die (1) coupled to the first die (2), wherein the second die (1) comprises a keep out zone (e.g., sensing area 20 or around surface 12) that at least partially overlaps the first die (2); and
-an underfill (gum material 23) between the first die (2) and the second die (1), wherein the underfill (23) is entirely outside the keep out zone (20), and wherein an edge of the underfill (23) facing the keep out zone (20) is non-vertical (e.g., curve side of 23 contacting with 122, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Chen teaches, Fig. 1, barrier (122) contacting the underfill (23), wherein the edge of the underfill (23) facing the keep out zone (20) is in direct contact with the barrier (122).
Re claims 4 & 5, Chen teaches, Fig. 2, wherein the barrier (122) is a ring shaped feature; wherein the ring shaped feature surrounds the keep out zone (20).
Re claim 13, Chen teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-2, [0021, 0030], a multi-die module, comprising:
-a first die (2);
-a second die (1) coupled to the first die (2); and
-an underfill (gum material 23) between the first die (2) and the second die (1), wherein an edge of the underfill (23) within a footprint of the first die (2) and the second die (1) is non-vertical (e.g., curve side of 23 contacting with 122, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 14, Chen teaches, Fig. 1, wherein the non-vertical edge is oriented to form an undercut (formed at contact between 23 & surface of 2).
Re claim 15, Chen teaches, Fig. 1, a barrier (122) adjacent to and contacting the edge of the underfill (23).
Re claim 17, Chen teaches, Fig. 1, wherein the edge of the underfill (23) faces a keep out zone (around 20).
4. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pelletier et al. (US 2019/0067037).
Re claim 1, Pelletier teaches, under BRI, Figs. 3A-C, 6A & 6B, [0032], a multi-die module, comprising:
-a first die (200);
-a second die (100) coupled to the first die (200), wherein the second die (100) comprises a keep out zone (e.g., around area of 102) that at least partially overlaps the first die (200); and
-an underfill (150) between the first die (200) and the second die (100), wherein the underfill (150) is entirely outside the keep out zone (around 102), and wherein an edge of the underfill (150) facing the keep out zone (around 102) is non-vertical (e.g., curve surface of 150).
PNG
media_image2.png
170
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Pelletier teaches, Fig. 3A, a barrier (154) contacting the underfill (150), wherein the edge of the underfill (150) facing the keep out zone (around 102) is in direct contact with the barrier (154).
Re claims 4 & 5, Pelletier teaches, Figs. 4B, 7A & 7B, wherein the barrier (154) is a ring shaped feature; wherein the ring shaped feature surrounds the keep out zone (around 102).
Re claim 13, Pelletier teaches, under BRI, Figs. 3A-C, 6A & 6B, [0032], a multi-die module, comprising:
-a first die (200);
-a second die (100) coupled to the first die (200); and
-an underfill (150) between the first die (200) and the second die (100), wherein an edge of the underfill (150) within a footprint of the first die (200) and the second die (100) is non-vertical (e.g., curve surface of 150).
PNG
media_image2.png
170
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 14, Pelletier teaches, Fig. 3C, wherein the non-vertical edge (of 150) is oriented to form an undercut (consider without 154) (see also Fig. 6A).
Re claim 15, Pelletier teaches, Fig. 3A, a barrier (154) adjacent to and contacting the edge of the underfill (150).
Re claim 17, Pelletier teaches, Fig. 3A, wherein the edge of the underfill (150) faces a keep out zone (around 102).
5. Claims 1, 2, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2022/0238505, “Chen05”).
Re claim 1, Chen05 teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1H-1J, [0029-00331], a multi-die module, comprising:
-a first die (300);
-a second die (consider 710A-B) coupled to the first die (300), wherein the second die (710A-B) comprises a keep out zone (e.g., in hole H, Fig. 1H) that at least partially overlaps the first die (300); and
-an underfill (800) between the first die (300) and the second die (710A-B), wherein the underfill (800) is entirely outside the keep out zone (in hole H), and wherein an edge of the underfill (800) facing the keep out zone (in hole H) is non-vertical (e.g., slant surface of 800, Fig. 1H).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Chen05 teaches, Fig. 1J, [0037], a barrier (910) contacting the underfill (800), wherein the edge of the underfill facing the keep out zone (in hole H) is in direct contact with the barrier (910).
Re claim 13, Chen05 teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1H-J, [0029-0031], a multi-die module, comprising:
-a first die (300);
-a second die (consider 710A-B) coupled to the first die (300); and
-an underfill (800) between the first die (300) and the second die (710A-B), wherein an edge of the underfill (800) within a footprint of the first die (300) and the second die (710A-B) is non-vertical (e.g., slant surface of 800, Fig. 1H).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 15, Chen05 teaches, Fig. 1J, [0037], a barrier (910) adjacent to and contacting the edge of the underfill (800).
Re claim 17, Chen05 teaches, Fig. 1H, wherein the edge of the underfill (800) faces a keep out zone (in hole H).
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.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kumai et al. (JP 2003-246828 A, English translation attached).
The teachings of Chen have been discussed above.
Re claim 3, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the barrier comprises silicone.
Kumai teaches the barrier (45) comprises silicone (page 21, 1st par.).
As taught by Kumai, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the barrier comprising silicone as claimed, because silicone is known in the art for its flexibility & releasability. 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 used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kumai in combination Chen due to above reason.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Yim et al. (US 2010/0078791).
The teachings of Chen have been discussed above.
Re claim 10, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the barrier has a width that is approximately 100 um or greater.
Yim teaches, Fig. 1A, the barrier (dam 280) has a width that is approximately 100 um or greater (e.g., 50-100 um, [0013]).
As taught by Yim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the barrier having a width that is approximately 100 um or greater as claimed, because it aids in preventing the underfill from bleeding towards the pads. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Yim in combination Chen due to above reason.
8. Claims 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Na et al. (US 2013/0279844).
The teachings of Chen have been discussed above.
Re claims 11 & 16, Chen teaches wherein the first die (chip 2) [0030] is an electrical integrated circuit (EIC).
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the second die is a photonics integrated circuit (PIC).
Na teaches, Fig. 1, the second die (105) is a photonics integrated circuit (PIC) [0021].
As taught by Na, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & utilize the above teaching into Chen to obtain the second die is a photonics integrated circuit (PIC) as claimed, because it aids in achieving a desired PIC chips in a package having improved coupling efficiency & high emission efficiency.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Na in combination Chen due to above reason.
Re claim 12, in combination cited above, Na teaches, Fig. 2, [0020], wherein a laser (115 including a laser) is provided in the keep out zone (e.g., around 115).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 7/16/26
Prosecution Insights