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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 19 and 20 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsien-Wei Chen et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2018/0082987 A1), hereinafter referenced as Chen_987, in view of Hsien-Wei Chen et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2015/0371947 A1), hereinafter referenced as Chen_947.
Regarding claim 1, Chen_987 teaches a package, comprising: a die (Fig.3B, element #140); a plurality of through vias (Fig.3B, element #116). Chen_987 does not teach the plurality of through vias surrounding the die. Chen_947 teaches a plurality of through vias surrounding the die (Fig.14, vias, element #106 surround the die, element #104). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chen_947 and disclose the plurality of through vias surrounding the die. As disclosed by Chen_947, the through vias can be used to connect a second semiconductor device to the package (Fig.12) and disposing the through vias around the die and on all sides of the package allows for shorter connections between the vias and the second device, which in turn can decrease connection resistance, increase data transmission speed and limit IR drops.
Chen_987 further teaches at least one dummy structure disposed between the die and the plurality of through vias (Fig.3B, element #162) and adjacent to at least one corner of the die (Fig.2A, element #160 is adjacent to a corner of die, element #140); an encapsulant encapsulating the die, the plurality of through vias and the at least one dummy structure (Fig.3C, element #170, paragraph [0048], rows 1-5); and a redistribution structure disposed on the die, the plurality of through vias, the at least one dummy structure and the encapsulant (Fig.3D, element #180) and electrically connected to the die and the plurality of through vias (Fig.3D, element #180 is showed connected to element #116 and #140), wherein in a cross-sectional view, a distance between the at least one dummy structure and the die (Fig.3B, the distance between element #162 and element #140 along the horizontal direction) is smaller than a distance between the at least one dummy structure and an adjacent through via among the plurality of through vias (Fig.3B, the distance between the top right corner of element #162 and the top right corner of element #116, both located on the right side of the figure).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein Young's modulus of the at least one dummy structure is greater than 10 GPa, and coefficient of thermal expansion of the at least one dummy structure is less than 44 ppm/0C (dummy structure is made of silicon which satisfies both limitations, paragraph [0021], row 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package according to claim 1, further comprising: a first attach film disposed on the die (Fig.3B, part of element #108, disposed on the bottom of the die, paragraph [0046], rows 5-6) wherein the first attach film and the redistribution structure are located on opposite sides of the die, respectively (Fig.3D, element #180 and element #108, labeled in figure 3B, are on opposite sides of die, element #140); and at least one second attach film disposed on the at least one dummy structure (Fig.3B, part of element #108, disposed on the bottom of the dummy structure, element #162) wherein the at least one second attach film and the redistribution structure are located on opposite sides of the at least one dummy structure, respectively (Fig.3D, element #180 and element #108, labeled in figure 3B, are on opposite sides of dummy structure, element #162).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the at least one dummy structure is smaller than a thickness of the plurality of through vias (Fig.3B, thickness of element #162 is smaller than the thickness of element #116).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein the distance between the at least one dummy structure and the die is a range from 50um to 100um (paragraph [0036], rows 1-3). The claimed range, between 60um and 300um, overlaps the range disclosed by Chen_987 and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein a width of the at least one dummy structure along a first direction is WX (Fig.2A, width of element #160 in X direction), a width of the at least one dummy structure along a second direction is WY (Fig.2A, width of element #160 in X direction), and the package satisfies one of the following: 0.33*WX <WY<3*WX; and 0.33*WY<WX<3*WY (Fig.2A, the width of element #160 in X direction is larger than the width in the Y direction and therefore is larger than 0.33 of the width in Y direction; and the width of element #160 in X direction is less than 3 times the width in the Y direction).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 does not teach the package according to claim 1, wherein the distance between the at least one dummy structure and the adjacent through via among the plurality of through vias is equal to or greater than 300 um. Chen_947 teaches wherein the distance between the at least one dummy structure and the adjacent through via among the plurality of through vias (Fig.18, the distance between the top right corner of the rightmost element #182 and the top right corner of the rightmost element #106) is equal or greater than the horizontal distance between the two elements, which is equal to the width of a through via (paragraph [0108], rows 2-5), and the width of a through via is in the range between 80um to 310um (paragraph [0088], rows 12-15). The claimed range, equal to or greater than 300um, overlaps the range disclosed by Chen_947 and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, Chen_987 further teaches a package structure, comprising: a first package (Fig.3G, element #200), comprising: a die (Fig.3B, element #140); a plurality of through vias (Fig.3B, element #116). Chen_987 does not teach the plurality of through vias surrounding the die. Chen_947 teaches a plurality of through vias surrounding the die (Fig.14, vias, element #106 surround the die, element #104). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chen_947 and disclose the plurality of through vias surrounding the die. As disclosed by Chen_947, the through vias can be used to connect a second semiconductor device to the existing package (Fig.12) and disposing the through vias around the die and on all sides of the package allows for shorter electrical connections between the vias and the second device, which in turn can decrease connection resistance, increase data transmission speed and limit IR drops.
Chen_987 further teaches at least one dummy structure disposed between the die and the plurality of through vias (Fig.3B, element #162) and adjacent to at least one corner of the die (Fig.2A, element #160 is adjacent to a corner of die, element #140); an encapsulant encapsulating the die, the plurality of through vias and the at least one dummy structure (Fig.3C, element #170, paragraph [0048], rows 1-5); and a redistribution structure disposed on the die, the plurality of through vias, the at least one dummy structure and the encapsulant (Fig.3D, element #180); and electrically connected to the die and the plurality of through vias (Fig.3D, element #180 is showed connected to element #116 and #140), a plurality of joint terminals disposed on and electrically connected to the plurality of through vias (Fig.3G, element #196); and a second package electrically connected to the first package through the plurality of joint terminals (Fig.3G, element #300), wherein in a cross-sectional view, a distance between the at least one dummy structure and the die (Fig.3B, the distance between element #162 and element #140 along the horizontal direction) is smaller than a distance between the at least one dummy structure and an adjacent through via among the plurality of through vias (Fig.3B, the distance between the top right corner of element #162 and the top right corner of element #116, both located on the right side of the figure).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package structure of claim 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package structure according to claim 10, wherein Young's modulus of the at least one dummy structure is greater than 10 GPa, and coefficient of thermal expansion of the at least one dummy structure is less than 44 ppm/0C (dummy structure is made of silicon and therefore satisfies both limitations, paragraph [0021], row 2).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package structure of claim 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package structure of according to claim 10, further comprising: a first attach film disposed on the die (Fig.3B, part of element #108, disposed on the bottom of the die, paragraph [0046], rows 5-6) wherein the first attach film and the redistribution structure are located on opposite sides of the die, respectively (Fig.3D, element #180 and element #108, labeled in figure 3B, are on opposite sides of die, element #140); and at least one second attach film disposed on the at least one dummy structure (Fig.3B, part of element #108, disposed on the bottom of the dummy structure, element #162) wherein the at least one second attach film and the redistribution structure are located on opposite sides of the at least one dummy structure, respectively (Fig.3D, element #180 and element #108, labeled in figure 3B, are on opposite sides of dummy structure, element #162).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package structure of claim 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package structure according to claim 10, wherein a thickness of the at least one dummy structure is smaller than a thickness of the plurality of through vias (Fig.3B, thickness of element #162 is smaller than the thickness of element #116).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package structure of claim 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package structure according to claim 10, wherein the distance between the at least one dummy structure and the die is a range from 50um to 100um (paragraph [0036], rows 1-3). The claimed range, between 60um and 300um overlaps the range disclosed by Chen_987 and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package structure of claim 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 further teaches the package structure according to claim 10, wherein a width of the at least one dummy structure along a first direction is WX (Fig.2A, width of element #160 in X direction), a width of the at least one dummy structure along a second direction is WY (Fig.2A, width of element #160 in X direction), and the package satisfies one of the following: 0.33*WX <WY<3*WX; and 0.33*WY<WX<3*WY (Fig.2A, the width of element #160 in X direction is larger than the width in the Y direction and therefore is larger than 0.33 of the width in Y direction; and the width of element #160 in X direction is less than 3 times the width in the Y direction).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package structure of claim 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Chen_987 does not teach the package according to claim 10, wherein the distance between the at least one dummy structure and the adjacent through via among the plurality of through vias is equal to or greater than 300 um. Chen_947 teaches wherein a distance between the at least one dummy structure and an adjacent through via among the plurality of through vias (Fig.18, the distance between the top right corner of the rightmost element #182 and the top right corner of the rightmost element #106) is equal or greater than the horizontal distance between the two elements, which is equal to the width of a through via (paragraph [0108], rows 2-5) and the width of a through via is in a range between 80um to 310um (paragraph [0088], rows 12-15). The claimed range, equal to or greater than 300um, overlaps the range disclosed by Chen_947 and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen_987, in view of Chen_947 and in view of Chih-Wei Wu et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2020/0365525 A1), hereinafter referenced as Wu.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 does not teach the package according to claim 1, wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is a multiple of four, and the multiple of four dummy structures are disposed adjacent to four corners of the die. Wu teaches wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is a multiple of four, and the multiple of four dummy structures are disposed adjacent to four corners of the die (Fig.20A, there are 4 dummy structures, element #54, adjacent to the corners of dies, element #28). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wu and disclose wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is a multiple of four, and the multiple of four dummy structures are disposed adjacent to four corners of the die. Having the dummy structures disposed in positions adjacent to the corners of the die allows for increase precision in placing the die in the desired position, if the dummy structures are used as guides. Furthermore, it creates a more uniform surface density, which reduces variations in encapsulation film thickness during planarization process.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package structure of claim 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 does not teach the package structure according to claim 10, wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is a multiple of four, and the multiple of four dummy structures are disposed adjacent to four corners of the die. Wu teaches wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is a multiple of four, and the multiple of four dummy structures are disposed adjacent to four corners of the die (Fig.20A, there are 4 dummy structures, element #54, adjacent to the corners of dies, element #28). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Wu and disclose wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is a multiple of four, and the multiple of four dummy structures are disposed adjacent to four corners of the die. Having the dummy structures disposed in positions adjacent to the corners of the die allows for increase precision in placing the die in the desired position, if the dummy structures are used as guides. Furthermore, it creates a more uniform surface density, which reduces variations in encapsulation film thickness during planarization process.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen_987, in view of Chen_947 and in view of Yuka Tamadate, (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2009/0154128 A1), hereinafter referenced as Tamadate.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 does not teach the package according to claim 1, wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is one, and the dummy structure is a ring structure surrounding the die. Tamadate teaches wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is one, and the dummy structure is a ring structure surrounding the die (Fig.1, dummy structure, element #217 is a ring surrounding die, element #202). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Tamadate and disclose wherein a number of the at least one dummy structure is one, and the dummy structure is a ring structure surrounding the die. As disclosed by Chen_947, the dummy structures can be used to dissipate heat away from the device and making the dummy structure in the form of a ring surrounding the die, provides a uniform heat dissipation in all directions.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen_987, in view of Chen_947 and in view of Li-Hsien Huang et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2019/0035772 A1), hereinafter referenced as Huang.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 teaches the package structure of claim 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Chen_987 and Chen_947 does not teach the package structure according to claim 10, further comprising: an integrated passive device disposed on and electrically connected to the redistribution structure, wherein the integrated passive device and the die are located on opposite sides of the redistribution structure, respectively. Huang teaches: an integrated passive device (Fig.5, element #184) disposed on and electrically connected to the redistribution structure (Fig.5, element #184 is disposed on and electrically connected to redistribution layer, element #140), wherein the integrated passive device and the die are located on opposite sides of the redistribution structure, respectively (Fig.5, element #184 and element #10 are located on opposite sides of RDL, element #140). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Huang and disclose an integrated passive device disposed on and electrically connected to the redistribution structure, wherein the integrated passive device and the die are located on opposite sides of the redistribution structure, respectively. Passive devices are routinely used in circuits to control electric currents and impedance, and placing the passive devices on the other side of the redistribution layer as compared to the die can reduce the overall area of the redistribution layer as compared to placing them on the same side of the redistribution layer
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they
are not persuasive. Possible amendments to the claims, involving several features of the package disclosed in the application, have been discussed during the interview held on 09/24/2025. The examiner tentatively agreed that references fail to disclose some, but not all, of these features. The feature related to the relationship of the distance between the dummy structure and the die and the distance between the dummy structure and the through vias, was not one of them. As noted in the rejection of the amended claims 1 and 16, the limitation “in a cross-sectional view, a distance between the at least one dummy structure and the die is smaller than a distance between the at least one dummy structure and an adjacent through via among the plurality of through vias” is taught by the main reference Chen_987, in Figure 3B.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CRISTIAN A TIVARUS whose telephone number is (703)756-4688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 AM -5:00 PM 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.
/CRISTIAN A TIVARUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899