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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 & 21-27 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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 7 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akkinepally et al. (US Pub. 2021/0305163).
Regarding claim 1, Akkinepally teaches a package structure comprising:
a first die 114-1 and a second die 114-2 embedded in a first insulating material (not shown but Akkinepally discusses an overmold material surrounding the two dies 114 in Para [0035], Fig. 2);
a first redistribution structure 202 over the first die 114-1 and the second die 114-2, the first redistribution structure comprising:
a dielectric layer 430 (Fig. 2 & Fig. 4A & Para [0028]);
a first conductive pad (450-1, see Fig. 4H & Fig. 2) in physical contact with a first die connector of the first die 114-1 (note the unlabeled die connector on the bottom surface of the die 114-1 in Fig. 2);
a second conductive pad (450-1, see Fig. 4H & Fig. 2) in physical contact with a second die connector of the second die 114-2 (note the unlabeled die connector on the bottom surface of the die 114-1 in Fig. 2);
a second insulating material 162/166 extending partially through the first redistribution structure 202, wherein a material of the second insulating material 162 is different from a material of the dielectric layer (Akkinepally teaches in Para [0028] wherein the dielectric layer can be carbon-doped dielectric or fluorine-doped dielectric and further teaches in Para [0023] wherein the second insulating material 162/166 can be organic polymer);
a first via 163 extending through the second insulating material 162 to physically contact the first conductive pad 450-1 (Fig. 4H & Fig. 2); and
a second via 163 extending through the second insulating material 162 to physically contact the second conductive pad (450-1 (Fig. 4H & Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Akkinepally teaches the package structure of claim 7, further comprising: a package substrate 204 coupled to the first redistribution structure 202, wherein the first redistribution structure is disposed between the package substrate 204 and the first die 114-1 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Akkinepally teaches the package structure of claim 7, wherein the second insulating material has a dielectric constant that is in a range from 2.8 to 4.2 (Akkinepally teaches in Para [0023] low-and/or ultra low-k dielectric that are understood to be within the above claim range).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkinepally as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 13, while Akkinepally teaches the package structure of claim 7, wherein the second insulating material has a silica filler content; however, Akkinepally is silent wherein said content is less than 70 percent by weight. Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 & 21-27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, a package comprising: a first die and a second die embedded in a first molding material; a first redistribution structure over the first die and the second die; a second molding material over portions of the first die and the second die, wherein the second molding material is disposed between a first portion of the first redistribution structure and a second portion of the first redistribution structure; a first via extending through the second molding material, wherein the first via is electrically connected to the first die; a second via extending through the second molding material, wherein the second via is electrically connected to the second die; and a silicon bridge electrically coupled to the first via and the second via.
Claims 2-6 are allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claim 1.
With respect to claim 21, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, a package comprising: a first die and a second die embedded in a first molding material; a first redistribution structure over the first die and the second die, wherein a first portion of the first redistribution structure is disposed over the first die, and a second portion of the first redistribution structure is disposed over the second die; a second molding material disposed between the first portion of the first redistribution structure and the second portion of the first redistribution structure; a silicon bridge disposed over the second molding material, wherein a first width of the silicon bridge in a direction that is parallel to a top surface of the second molding material is smaller or equal to a smallest width of the second molding material between a first outermost sidewall of the second molding material and a second outermost sidewall of the second molding material; a first via extending through the second molding material, wherein the first via electrically connects the silicon bridge to the first die; and a second via extending through the second molding material, wherein the second via electrically connects the silicon bridge to the second die.
Claims 22-27 are allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claim 21.
Claims 8-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 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, 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818