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
Amended claims 1-7 and 21-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons. In response filed October 1 2025 to the Restriction/Election Requirement, mailed August 1 2025, Applicant elected (as treated without traverse because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, see MPEP § 818.01(a)) Species 2, drawn to the invention of Figure 10A. However, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 21 to require features of a non-elected embodiment. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to require that the protrusion of the lid portion has a first footprint greater than a second footprint of the package component. This feature is only shown in Figures 9A-9C, which is not the elected invention of Figure 10A. Additionally, Applicant has amended claim 21 to require that the package further comprise a stiffener. This feature is only shown in Figure 9B, which is not the elected invention of Figure 10A.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 21-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 30 is 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.
Claim 30 requires that the downward protruding region is directly over both the first and second semiconductor package components and has at least a substantially same footprint as the first semiconductor package component and the second semiconductor package component. This configuration, however, has not been adequately disclosed in the instant specification and/or drawings. Figure 12A of the instant disclosure shows the lid portion 226L having a protruding region extending to both the first and second semiconductor package components, thus extending to the second and third TIMs as required by claim 32, with a trench between the first and second portions over the first and second package components, respectively. However, this figure clearly does not also show that the downward protruding region (which includes the protrusions over the package components and the trench therebetween) having at least substantially the same footprint as the first semiconductor package component and the second semiconductor package component. Figure 12A shows that the entire downward protruding region has a footprint considerably greater than the footprint of each of the semiconductor package components.
Thus, the amendments have introduced new matter to the claims.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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 28 and 30 are 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 28 requires that the lid portion comprises a downward protruding region directly over the first semiconductor package component, the downward protruding region having at least a substantially same footprint as the first semiconductor package component. Claim 30, which depends on claim 28, requires that the downward protruding region is directly over the first semiconductor package component and the second semiconductor package component and has at least a substantially same footprint as the first semiconductor package component and the second semiconductor package component. In light of the disclosure, it is unclear how the downward protruding region can be both directly over the two semiconductor package components and have the same footprint as the first semiconductor package component. Figure 12A of the instant disclosure clearly shows that the protruding region directly over both of the package components has a considerably larger footprint than the footprint of each of the semiconductor package components. It is possible that Applicant has intended to require that the footprint of the protruding region is substantially the same as the footprint of both the first and semiconductor package components combined. Additionally, in light of claim 32, it is possible that Applicant has intended for the protruding region to comprise two separate regions, one over each of the semiconductor package components, wherein each two separate regions has the same footprint of the first and second semiconductor package components, respectively. This configuration is shown in Figure 12A, minus the footprint of the trench/cavity in the protruding region (depending on the interpretation of “substantially”), however Applicant has not clearly claimed this structure.
Thus, in light of the above level of speculation as to what is required of the protruding region, the claims are indefinite.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Falola et al. (“Falola” US 2020/0388554).
Regarding claim 28, Falola discloses a method comprising:
attaching a first semiconductor package component (106-3/106-4/108, see Figure 3A, and while Figure 3A shows the interposer 108 below dies 106-1/106-2, Falola discloses in para. [0017] that the interposer may be attached below a die 106, and para. [0028] of Falola discloses that the arrangement of dies 106 in Figure 3 is illustrative, and any arrangement may be included, i.e. the interposer may be disposed below dies 106-3/106-4 in addition to 106-1/106-2) to a package substrate (102, see Figure 3A), the first semiconductor package component (106-3/106-4/108) comprising:
a first interposer (108, under dies 106-3/106-4); and
a first die (106-4) and a second die (106-3) bonded to the first interposer (108);
attaching a second semiconductor package component (106-1/106-2/108) to the package substrate (102, see Figure 3A), the second semiconductor package component (106-1/106-2/108) comprising:
a second interposer (108, under dies 106-1/106-2); and
a third die (106-1) and a fourth die (106-2) bonded to the second interposer (108, see Figure 3A);
attaching a first thermal interface material (TIM) (104) to the first die (106-4, see Figure 3A);
attaching a second TIM (146) to the second die (106-3, see Figure 3A);
attaching a third TIM (104) to the third die (106-1, see Figure 3A); and
attaching a lid assembly (110) over the first semiconductor package component (106-3/106-4/108) and the second semiconductor package component (106-1/106-2/108), the lid assembly (110) comprising:
a ring portion (110A) along the package substrate (102, see Figure 3A) and around the first semiconductor package component (106-3/106-4/108) and the second semiconductor package component (106-1/106-2/108, see Figure 3A); and
a lid portion (plate portion horizontally extending over the package components, including 110B/110C “pedestals”/”ribs”) over and contacting the first TIM (104 on die 106-4), the second TIM (146 on die 106-3), and the third TIM (104 on die 106-1, see Figure 3A), the lid portion (plate portions and 110B/110C) comprising a downward protruding region (110B/110C) directly over the first semiconductor package component (106-3/106-4/108, Figure 3A shows the 110C portions directly over the first semiconductor package component), the downward protruding region (110B/110C) having at least a substantially same footprint as the first semiconductor package component (106-3/106-4/108, Figure 3A shows that the footprint of the lid portion including the “pedestals” has the same footprint as the dies 106-3/106-4 plus the interposer incorporated beneath the dies 106-3/106-4, i.e. the footprint of the first semiconductor package component, see also annotated Figure 3A below).
Regarding claim 29, Falola discloses wherein the third TIM (104 on third die 106-1) is attached to the fourth die (106-2, see TIM 104 is also attached to die 106-2).
Regarding claim 30, Falola discloses wherein the downward protruding region (110B/ 110C) is directly over the first semiconductor package component (106-3/106-4/108) and the second semiconductor package component (106-1/106-2/108, see Figure 3A), and wherein the downward protruding region (110B/110C) has at least a substantially same footprint as the first semiconductor package component and the second semiconductor package component (Figure 3A shows the entire lateral extent of both of the semiconductor package components is substantially the same as that of the downward protruding region of the lid portion, see also this demonstrated in annotated Figure 3A below).
Regarding claim 31, Falola discloses wherein the first die (106-4) and the second die (106-3) have a same height from the first interposer (108, Figure 3A shows that the dies 106-3/106-4 are separated from the upper surface of the substrate 102, via interconnects 126, with an equal distance, i.e. an equal height, thus with an interposer included under the first and second dies 106-4/106-3, the first and second dies would have the same height or distance from the interposer as well), and wherein the first TIM (104) has a greater thickness than the second TIM (146, see Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 32, Falola discloses wherein the downward protruding region (110B/110C) comprises:
a first downward protrusion (110C over second die 106-3) extending to the second TIM (146 on die 106-3, see Figure 3A);
a second downward protrusion (110B around third and fourth dies 106-1/106-2) extending to the third TIM (104 on dies 106-1/106-2, the protrusions 110B are considered extending to the third TIM because the protrusions 110B extend downwards toward the region of the third TIM); and
a trench (recessed areas between the protrusions, or the lower surface of the plate/lid portion) interposed between the first downward protrusion (110C over second die) and the second downward protrusion (110B around third and fourth dies, see Figure 3A).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falola as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (“Lin” US 2021/0249322).
Regarding claim 33, Falola discloses wherein attaching the lid assembly (110) comprises:
adhering the ring portion (110a) to the package substrate (102) using a first adhesive (120, see Figure 3A).
Falola does not disclose that after adhering the ring portion, the lid portion is adhered to the ring portion using a second adhesive.
However, Lin discloses in Figure 1 and para. [0041-[0043] a lid assembly (160) that comprises the ring portion (168) and a lid portion (162) that are adhered together (see para. [0043]).
Since all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner, specifically the lid assembly of Lin would provide support and heat dissipation for the package components, the result of the combination would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the two-part lid assembly as disclosed by Lin as being no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The Examiner also notes that Lin and Falola do not disclose the specific order of process steps of adhering the lid portion to the ring portion after adhering the ring portion to the package substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adhere the lid portion to the ring portion after adhering the ring portion to the package substrate since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP § 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Genevieve G Bullard-Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-0609. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/Genevieve G Bullard-Connor/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights