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
Claim 81 is 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 term “different” in claim 81 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “different” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, it is unclear as to exactly how “the additional inorganic material layer is different than the inorganic material layer disposed on the carrier” (emphasis added). For the sake of further analysis, it is interpreted that the additional inorganic material layer is only different from the original inorganic material layer by way of its position on the integrated device die rather than on the carrier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 17, 18, 26, 27, 33, 34, 78, and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (PGPub No. 20190385928) in further view of Enquist (PGPub No. 20040058476), Uzoh (PGPub No. 20170338214), and Rostoker (US Patent No. 5405808).
Regarding claim 1, Leobandung teaches an integrated device package comprising: a carrier; and a cap directly bonded to the carrier without an intervening adhesive, the carrier and the cap at least partially define a cavity to receive a coolant (Figs. 7A-7B and [0067] point to a semiconductor package 10 comprising an internal cavity 310 filled with a coolant 312 and defined by a package substrate 100 (carrier) and a housing 300 (cap), which may be attached via methods such as screws or clamps (directly bonded).); and an integrated device die that is disposed in the cavity (Id. points to semiconductor device 200.).
Leobandung fails to teach wherein: directly bonding the cap to the carrier forms direct bonds between the cap and the carrier; an integrated device die that is bonded to the carrier without any intervening adhesive; and an inorganic material layer disposed at least on a portion of the carrier, at least a portion of the inorganic material layer being exposed to the cavity to contact the coolant.
Enquist teaches wherein: directly bonding the cap to the carrier forms direct bonds between the cap and the carrier (Figs. 3A-3B and [0059] point to a set of encapsulated concave devices comprising a cover 10 (cap) and a carrier 4 that are brought into direct contact and bonded.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung and Enquist, such that the cap and carrier are directly bonded to each in order to form a hermetic seal.
Leobandung et al. still fails to teach an integrated device die that is bonded to the carrier without any intervening adhesive; and an inorganic material layer disposed at least on a portion of the carrier, at least a portion of the inorganic material layer being exposed to the cavity to contact the coolant.
Uzoh teaches an integrated device die that is bonded to the carrier without any intervening adhesive (Figs. 1A-1F and [0017] point to the first dies 3a & 3b (integrated device die) being directly bonded to the substrate 2 (carrier).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Uzoh, such that the die is directly bonded to the carrier in order to establish a stronger connection while also streamlining the fabrication process.
Leobandung et al. still fails to teach an inorganic material layer disposed at least on a portion of the carrier, at least a portion of the inorganic material layer being exposed to the cavity to contact the coolant
Rostoker teaches an inorganic material layer disposed at least on a portion of the carrier, at least a portion of the inorganic material layer being exposed to the cavity to contact the coolant (Fig. 1b and Col.5, line 55 – Col. 6, line 21 point to a cavity-type semiconductor package comprising an inorganic, dielectric coating 160a (inorganic material layer) disposed over a portion of the bottom of the cavity (carrier), which then comes into contact with a suitable thermally conductive liquid 114 (coolant).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Rostoker, such that an inorganic material layer is formed to coat at least a portion of the carrier and provide protection against any damage that might result from direct contact with the coolant.
Regarding claim 2, Leobandung teaches wherein the carrier comprises silicon ([0044] point to the substrate 100 comprising suitable materials such as, but not limited to, Si, SiGe, SiGeC, SiC and multi-layers thereof.).
Regarding claim 3, Leobandung teaches wherein the carrier comprises an interposer or a printed circuit board (PCB) ([0044] point to an example where the substrate 100 can include a PCB for connected multiple separate devices together.).
Regarding claim 5, Leobandung teaches wherein the cap comprises silicon, glass, plastic, or metal ([0055] points to the housing 300 (cap) comprising any suitable material for conducting heat from an interior to an exterior, which includes a metal or metal alloy such as copper (Cu) and alloys thereof.).
Regarding claim 7, Rostoker teaches wherein the inorganic material layer is further disposed on the integrated device die (Fig. 1b and Col.5, line 55 – Col. 6, line 21 point to a cavity-type semiconductor package comprising an inorganic, dielectric coating 160a (inorganic material layer) also disposed over the die 130a.) Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Rostoker, such that the inorganic material layer additionally coats the integrated device die to provide protection against any damage that might result from direct contact with the coolant.
Regarding claim 9, Uzoh teaches wherein the integrated device die comprises a conductive feature and a non-conductive region, and wherein the conductive feature is directly bonded to a corresponding conductive feature of the carrier and the non-conductive region is directly bonded to a corresponding non-conductive region of the carrier (Figs. 1A-1F, [0025], and [0027] point to the dies 3a & 3b (integrated device die) having nonconductive regions 20 and interconnects 10 (conductive features), as well as heating said dies and the substrate 2 to strengthen the bonds between the nonconductive regions, between the conductive regions, and/or between opposing conductive and non-conductive regions, to cause the dies 3a, 3b to bond with the substrate 2.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Uzoh, such that the die has both conductive and non-conductive regions so as to allow for signal transmission while also providing physical stability, which in turn are bonded to corresponding regions on the carrier in order to maintain said properties.
Regarding claim 10, Uzoh teaches wherein a distance between the conductive feature of the integrated device die and an edge of the integrated device die is between 50 µm to 500 µm (Figs. 1A-1F and [0027] point to dies 3a & 3b (integrated device die) having interconnects 10 (conductive feature).). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ranging distance between the conductive feature and edge of the integrated device die to be a result effective variable affecting the electrical efficiency and signal transmission of the conductive feature. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Leobandung et al., in further view of Uzoh, to have said distance within the claimed range in order to achieve similar levels of effectiveness, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Rostoker teaches wherein the non-conductive region of the carrier comprises the inorganic material layer (Fig. 1b and Col.5, line 55 – Col. 6, line 21 point to a cavity-type semiconductor package comprising an inorganic, dielectric coating 160a (inorganic material layer) disposed over a portion of the bottom of the cavity (non-conductive region of the carrier).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Rostoker, such that the inorganic material is formed as part of the carrier’s non-conductive region in order to improve the carrier’s electrical isolation properties and by extension provide a higher level of protection.
Regarding claim 17, Leobandung teaches wherein a leg of the cap that is bonded to the carrier has a width in a range of 100 µm to 5 mm (Figs. 7A and 7B point to the housing 300 (cap), which is later filled with a coolant 312, comprising sidewall(s) 304 (leg). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ranging width of the leg of the cap to be a result effective variable affecting the integrity of the cap & cavity, and by extension the cooling capabilities of the coolant. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Leobandung to have said within the claimed range in order to achieve similar levels of effectiveness, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 18, Leobandung teaches wherein the coolant comprises a liquid or a gas ([0062] points to a coolant 312, which can include a liquid such as, e.g., alcohol, polymer liquid, or other heat conducting dielectric liquid.).
Regarding claim 26, Leobandung teaches an integrated device package comprising: a carrier; a cap directly bonded to the carrier, the carrier and the cap at least partially defining a cavity to receive a fluid coolant (Figs. 7A and 7B point to a semiconductor package 10 comprising an internal cavity 310 filled with a coolant 312 and defined by a package substrate 100 (carrier) and a housing 300 (cap).); an opening to convey the fluid coolant into or remove the fluid coolant from the cavity (Fig. 7B and [0065] point to a hole 110 (opening).); and an integrated device die disposed in the cavity (Fig. 7B points to semiconductor device 200 (integrated device die).).
Leobandung fails to teach wherein: directly bonding the cap to the carrier forms direct bonds between the cap and the carrier, and an integrated device die directly bonded to the carrier without any intervening adhesive.
Enquist teaches wherein directly bonding the cap to the carrier forms direct bonds between the cap and the carrier (Figs. 3A-3B and [0059] point to a set of encapsulated concave devices comprising a cover 10 (cap) and a carrier 4 that are brought into direct contact and bonded.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung and Enquist, such that the cap and carrier are directly bonded to each in order to form a hermetic seal.
Leobandung et al. still fails to teach an integrated device die directly bonded to the carrier without any intervening adhesive.
Uzoh teaches an integrated device die directly bonded to the carrier without any intervening adhesive (Figs. 1A-1F and [0017] point to the first dies 3a & 3b (integrated device die) being directly bonded to the substrate 2 (carrier).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Uzoh, such that the die within the cavity is directly bonded to the carrier in order to establish a stronger connection while also streamlining the fabrication process.
Regarding claim 27, Rostoker teaches an inorganic material layer disposed at least on a portion of the carrier, wherein at least a portion of the inorganic material layer contacts the fluid coolant (Fig. 1b and Col.5, line 55 – Col. 6, line 21 point to a cavity-type semiconductor package comprising an inorganic, dielectric coating 160a (inorganic material layer) disposed over a portion of the bottom of the cavity (carrier), which then comes into contact with a suitable thermally conductive liquid 114 (coolant).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Rostoker, such that an inorganic material layer is formed to coat at least a portion of the carrier and provide protection against any damage that might result from direct contact with the coolant.
Regarding claim 34, Uzoh teaches wherein the integrated device die comprises a conductive feature and a non-conductive region, wherein the conductive feature is directly bonded to a corresponding conductive feature of the carrier and the non-conductive region is directly bonded to a corresponding non-conductive region of the carrier (Figs. 1A-1F, [0025], and [0027] point to the dies 3a & 3b (integrated device die) having nonconductive regions 20 and interconnects 10 (conductive feature), as well as heating said dies and the substrate 2 to strengthen the bonds between the nonconductive regions, between the conductive regions, and/or between opposing conductive and non-conductive regions, to cause the dies 3a, 3b to directly bond with the substrate 2.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Uzoh, such that the die has both conductive and non-conductive regions so as to allow for signal transmission while also providing physical stability to the die, which in turn are bonded to corresponding regions on the carrier in order to maintain said properties.
Regarding claim 78, Leobandung teaches an integrated device package comprising: a cap bonded to the carrier, the carrier and the cap at least partially defining a cavity to receive a fluid coolant (Figs. 7A and 7B point to a semiconductor package 10 comprising an internal cavity 310 filled with a coolant 312 and defined by a package substrate 100 (carrier) and a housing 300 (cap).); an opening to convey the fluid coolant into or remove the fluid coolant from the cavity (Fig. 7B points to a hole 110 (opening).); and an integrated device die disposed in the cavity (Id. points to semiconductor device 200 (integrated device die).).
Leobandung fails to teach wherein: directly bonding the cap to the carrier forms direct bonds between the cap and the carrier; a carrier having a first conductive feature and a first non-conductive region; and an integrated device die having a second conductive feature and a second non-conductive region, the second conductive feature being directly bonded without any intervening adhesive to the first conductive feature of the carrier, and the second non-conductive region being directly bonded without any intervening adhesive to the first non-conductive region of the carrier.
Enquist teaches wherein: directly bonding the cap to the carrier forms direct bonds between the cap and the carrier (Figs. 3A-3B and [0059] point to a set of encapsulated concave devices comprising a cover 10 (cap) and a carrier 4 that are brought into direct contact and bonded.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung and Enquist, such that the cap and carrier are directly bonded to each in order to form a hermetic seal.
Leobandung et al. still fails to teach a carrier having a first conductive feature and a first non-conductive region; and an integrated device die having a second conductive feature and a second non-conductive region, the second conductive feature being directly bonded without any intervening adhesive to the first conductive feature of the carrier, and the second non-conductive region being directly bonded without any intervening adhesive to the first non-conductive region of the carrier.
Uzoh teaches a carrier having a first conductive feature and a first non-conductive region; and an integrated device die having a second conductive feature and a second non-conductive region, the second conductive feature being directly bonded without any intervening adhesive to the first conductive feature of the carrier, and the second non-conductive region being directly bonded without any intervening adhesive to the first non-conductive region of the carrier (Figs. 1A-1F, [0025], and [0027] point to the dies 3a & 3b (integrated device die) having nonconductive regions 20 and interconnects 10 (conductive features), as well as heating said dies and the substrate 2 to strengthen the bonds between the nonconductive regions, between the conductive regions, and/or between opposing conductive and non-conductive regions, to cause the dies 3a, 3b to bond with the substrate 2. [0072] further points to how the nonconductive and conductive regions of the die and carrier can be directly bonded to one another without intervening adhesives and without application of external pressure.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Uzoh, such that the die has both conductive and non-conductive regions so as to allow for signal transmission while also providing physical stability, which in turn are bonded to corresponding regions on the carrier in order to maintain said properties.
Regarding claim 79, Uzoh teaches wherein a distance between the second conductive feature of the integrated device die and an edge of the integrated device die is between 50 µm to 500 µm (Figs. 1A-1F and [0027] point to dies 3a & 3b (integrated device die) having interconnects 10 (conductive feature).). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ranging distance between the conductive feature and edge of the integrated device die to be a result effective variable affecting the electrical efficiency and signal transmission of the conductive feature. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Leobandung et al., in further view of Uzoh, to have said distance within the claimed range in order to achieve similar levels of effectiveness, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 80, Enquist teaches wherein the direct bonds comprise covalent bonds ([0086] points to the formation of covalent bonds across the bonding interface.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Enquist, such that the cap and carrier bonded via covalent bonds in order to form a hermetic seal.
Regarding claim 81, Rostoker teaches an additional inorganic material layer disposed on the integrated device die, wherein the additional inorganic material layer is different than the inorganic material layer disposed on the carrier (Fig. 1b points to a portion of the inorganic, dielectric coating 160a (additional inorganic material layer) disposed over a die 130a.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Rostoker, such that an additional inorganic material layer disposed on the integrated device die in order to provide protection against any damage that might result from direct contact with the coolant.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung et al. in further view of Koeneman (PGPub No. 20130044431).
Regarding claim 15, Koeneman teaches wherein the cap comprises a coolant inlet and a coolant outlet, wherein the coolant flows from the coolant inlet to the coolant outlet in the cavity (Fig. 8 and [0032] point to a liquid cooled package comprising fluidic tubes 32 (coolant inlet; coolant outlet). Fig. 2 and [0024] further point to fluidic pathways 33, which show how the fluid 34 is delivered into and removed from the cavity 19 at opposite ends.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Koeneman, such that the cap further comprises a coolant inlet and coolant outlet in order to increase heat dissipation by creating flow paths for the coolant to carry away the heat generated by the integrated device die.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung et al. in further view of Lan (PGPub No. 20190215986).
Regarding claim 20, Lan teaches a flow disturbance structure on the integrated device die or on an inner surface of the cap to disturb flow of the coolant in the cavity (Figs. 3A-3C and [0028] point to a water-cooling radiator assembly 2 comprising a first flow-disturbing unit 21 (flow disturbance structure) in contact with an inner surface of the first top plate member 2011 (inner surface of the cap), which provides the effect of disturbing liquid (coolant) flows.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Lan, such that a flow disturbance structure is further added within the cavity between the integrated device die and the cap in order to enhance the performance of the coolant and improve heat dissipation.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung et al. in further view of Aryan (PGPub. No. 20140252531 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Aryan teaches a thermoelectric element coupled to the cap or the integrated device die (Fig. 3 and [0032] point to an IC 20 comprising a die 22 (integrated device die) and a thermoelectric casing 26 (thermoelectric element) that is directly thermally coupled to at least as portion of the die 22.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Leobandung et al. and Aryan, such that a thermoelectric element is further added and coupled to the integrated device die in order to enhance the heat dissipation effects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 26, and 78 (along with any dependent claims) under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Leobandung et al. in further view of Enquist (PGPub No. 20040058476).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick L Cullen whose telephone number is (703)756-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30AM - 5PM EST.
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.
/PATRICK CULLEN/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights