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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/23/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no search burden exists. This is not found persuasive because different classification for the two claimed inventions is proof of serious burden in and of itself. As stated in MPEP 808.02, a serious burden is present when there is A) Separate classification thereof: this shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al US 2020/0286809.
Pertaining to claim 1, Gong teaches a package, comprising:
a substrate 112;
a first semiconductor element 132, disposed on and electrically connected to the substrate;
a second semiconductor element 110, disposed on and electrically connected to the substrate and disposed beside the first semiconductor element;
a third semiconductor element 126, disposed on and electrically connected to the substrate and disposed beside the first and second semiconductor elements see Figure 1;
a heat transfer enhancing layer 136 disposed on and joined to the first semiconductor element;
a thermal conductive material layer 122 disposed on and joined to the second semiconductor element;
an adhesive material layer 128 (this material would be considered adhesive ie bonds the two layers together with at a minimum, surface tension) disposed on and joined to the third semiconductor element; and
a lid 120, disposed over the first, second and third semiconductor elements, and joined to the heat transfer enhancing layer, the thermal conductive material layer and the adhesive material layer see Figure 1,
Gong doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the thermal conductive material layer has a thermal conductivity lower than that of the heat transfer enhancing layer and higher than that of the adhesive material layer, and the thermal conductive material layer has a bonding strength larger than that of the heat transfer enhancing layer and smaller than that of the adhesive material layer. However, Gong does teach that each of the elements 136, 122 and 128 can be different and have different thermal properties, and that the selection of these materials is based on thermal solutions desired for each of the elements 132, 110 and 126 See Paragraph [0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the thermal materials as they best function for the desired device arrangement as taught by Gong. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tonapi et al US 2006/0065387
Pertaining to claim 2, Gong teaches the package of claim 1, but is silent wherein the heat transfer enhancing layer includes a film-type thermal interface material, and the thermal conductive material layer includes a gel- type thermal interface material. Tonapi teaches an interface between a die and a heat sink including a thermal interface material (TIM) between the two elements and in contact with the two elements, wherein the TIM can be selected from an adhesive, gel, grease and/or a film [0037]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select for the materials above an adhesive, gel grease and/or film based on the teaching of Tonapi, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Pertaining to claim 3, Gong in view of Tonapi teaches the package of claim 2, but do not explicitly teach varying stiffness of the materials, such that the heat transfer enhancing layer has a stiffness larger than that of the thermal conductive material layer. However, given that the references teach that these materials can be different, their physical properties would be different, and that includes stiffness. Whether one or the other is stiffer is merely a result of selecting a material for each element based on design choice. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al US 2020/0185300.
Pertaining to claim 4, Gong teaches the package of claim 1, but does not teach a package further comprising a wall structure disposed on the substrate and located between the substrate and the lid. Xu teaches a thermal lid for a semiconductor element that includes distinct wall segments in the claimed arrangement. See Figure 1A elements 107 (walls) and 105 (lid). It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Gong and Xu to enable the lid structure of Gong to be substituted for the teachings of Xu because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable structures for providing a thermal lid element and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07. The only difference between Gong and Xu with respect to the thermal lid, is that Gong has a singular piece structure and Xu has a multi piece structure, which are obvious variants serving the same purpose and amounts to nothing more than design choice.
Claim(s 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong and Xu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lai et al US 2021/0305122.
Pertaining to claim 5, Gong in view of Xu teaches the package of claim 4, but does not teach wherein the wall structure includes a ring wall and ribs connected to the ring wall to divide a space enclosed by the ring wall. Lai teaches a ring wall 300 with ribs 300B see Figure 3 to divide a space enclosed by the ring wall See Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Lai into the structure of Gong/Xu by including rib wall portions. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Gong/xu in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of thermally isolating individual components.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al US 2020/0286809 and further in view of Xu et al US 2020/0185300.
Pertaining to claim 9, Gong teaches a package, comprising:
a substrate 112;
a first semiconductor element 132, disposed on and electrically connected to the substrate;
a second semiconductor element 110, disposed on and electrically connected to the substrate and disposed beside the first semiconductor element;
a third semiconductor element 126, disposed on and electrically connected to the substrate and disposed beside the first and second semiconductor elements see Figure 1;
a heat transfer enhancing layer 136 disposed on and joined to the first semiconductor element;
a thermal conductive material layer 122 disposed on and joined to the second semiconductor element;
an adhesive material layer 128 (this material would be considered adhesive ie bonds the two layers together with at a minimum, surface tension) disposed on and joined to the third semiconductor element; and
a lid 120, disposed over the first, second and third semiconductor elements, and joined to the heat transfer enhancing layer, the thermal conductive material layer and the adhesive material layer see Figure 1,
Gong doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the thermal conductive material layer has a thermal conductivity lower than that of the heat transfer enhancing layer and higher than that of the adhesive material layer, and the thermal conductive material layer has a bonding strength larger than that of the heat transfer enhancing layer and smaller than that of the adhesive material layer. However, Gong does teach that each of the elements 136, 122 and 128 can be different and have different thermal properties, and that the selection of these materials is based on thermal solutions desired for each of the elements 132, 110 and 126 See Paragraph [0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the thermal materials as they best function for the desired device arrangement as taught by Gong. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc.
Gong fails to teach a package further comprising a wall structure disposed on the substrate and located between the substrate and the lid. Xu teaches a thermal lid for a semiconductor element that includes distinct wall segments in the claimed arrangement. See Figure 1A elements 107 (walls) and 105 (lid). It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Gong and Xu to enable the lid structure of Gong to be substituted for the teachings of Xu because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable structures for providing a thermal lid element and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07. The only difference between Gong and Xu with respect to the thermal lid, is that Gong has a singular piece structure and Xu has a multi piece structure, which are obvious variants serving the same purpose and amounts to nothing more than design choice.
Pertaining to claim 10, Gong in view of Xu teaches the package of claim 9, wherein the first semiconductor element 132 includes a first die having an active surface and a backside surface opposite to the active surface, and a first encapsulant laterally wrapping the first die, the heat transfer enhancing layer 136 contacts the backside surface of the first die and the first encapsulant. See Figure 1 of Gong marked up below
PNG
media_image1.png
438
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 12, Gong in view of Xu teaches the package of claim 9, wherein the heat transfer enhancing layer 122 has a vertical projection fully overlaps with a vertical projection of the first semiconductor element 110 see Figure 1 element 136 completely overlaps the top surface of element 132 (Gong).
Pertaining to claim 14, Gong in view of Xu teaches the package of claim 9, wherein the adhesive material layer 128 disposed on the third semiconductor element 126 is located near a corner of the package. See Figure 1 marked up below
PNG
media_image2.png
434
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 11, 13, 15 and 16 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.
Pertaining to claim 6, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the lid includes a first portion joined with the heat transfer enhancing layer, a second portion joined with the thermal conductive material layer and the adhesive material layer, the first portion has a first thickness larger than a second thickness of the second portion.
Pertaining to claim 11, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the heat transfer enhancing layer has a span larger than that of the first encapsulant, and the heat transfer enhancing layer has an extended portion protruded out and spaced apart from a sidewall of the first encapsulant
Pertaining to claim 13, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the heat transfer enhancing layer has a vertical projection partially overlaps with a vertical projection of the first semiconductor element.
Pertaining to claim 15, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the lid includes a first portion joined with the heat transfer enhancing layer, a second portion joined with the thermal conductive material layer and the adhesive material layer, and a third portion connecting the first and second portions, wherein the third portion has a thickness smaller than that of the first portion and that of the second portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817