DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 5/11/2026.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 and 21-27 are pending. Claims 11 and 15-20 are cancelled. Claim 27 is new. Claims 1, 7 and 21 are currently amended. Claims 1, 7 and 21 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments and amendments, filed 5/11/2026, with respect to Prior Art Rejections for independent claims 1 and 21, as indicated in line numbers 2-6 of the office action mailed 2/12/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn, and independent claims 1 and 21 are allowed as noted below in the section “Allowable Subject Matter”.
Applicants' arguments and amendments, filed 5/11/2026, with respect to independent claim 7, although substantive and pertinent to expediting the prosecution of the current application, are considered moot and not persuasive, respectfully, in light of new grounds of rejections made using the prior art of Lu as noted below in the rejection of independent claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 27 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.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the second integrated circuit” (singular form) in lines 2-3 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim depends from claim 21 which introduces “a plurality of second integrated circuits” (plural form), and thus it is unclear which specific “second integrated circuit” is being referenced in the limitation “the second integrated circuit” (singular form) in lines 2-3 of the claim.
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.
Claims 7-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 2013/0187258 A1, hereinafter “Lu”).
Regarding independent claim 7, Figure 7A of Lu discloses a semiconductor package, comprising:
a first integrated circuit 40 (“components… device dies”- ¶0007);
a plurality of second integrated circuits 44 (“components… device dies”- ¶0011), bonded onto the first integrated circuit 40;
at least one adhesion layer 52 (“polymer”- ¶0012), extending between the second integrated circuits 44 and having a substantially constant thickness (i.e., the thickness of 52 on the inner sidewalls of 44 notated with sidewalls 52B) on at least one sidewall of the second integrated circuits 44; and
a molding compound 56 (“polymer… molding compound”- ¶0019), extending between the second integrated circuits 44 and on the at least one adhesion layer 52, wherein the at least one adhesion layer 52 is non-electrically conductive (¶0012), and a thickness (i.e., the thickness of the central portion of 52) of the at least one adhesion layer 52 extending on the first integrated circuit 40 between the second integrated circuits 44 is larger than the substantially constant thickness.
Regarding claim 8, Figure 7A of Lu discloses wherein the at least one adhesion layer 52 entirely covers the at least one sidewall of the second integrated circuits 44.
Regarding claim 9, Figure 7A of Lu discloses wherein a topmost surface of the at least one adhesion layer 52 facing away from the first integrated circuit 40 is substantially coplanar with a top surface of the molding compound 56 facing away from the first integrated circuit 40.
Regarding claim 10, Figure 7A of Lu discloses wherein the at least one adhesion layer 52 extending on the first integrated circuit 40 between the second integrated circuits 44 has a substantially flat surface.
Regarding claim 14, Figure 7A of Lu discloses wherein the at least one adhesion layer 52 is in direct contact with the second integrated circuits 44.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Hwang et al. (US 2012/0007230 A1, hereinafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 13, Figure 7A of Lu discloses wherein the at least one adhesion layer 52 is an underfill (¶0012).
Lu does not expressly disclose a material of the at least one adhesion layer comprises a spin-on-glass (SOG), polyimide, benzocyclobutene (BCB) or polybenzoxazole (PBO).
Figure 11 of Hwang discloses a semiconductor package comprising an underfill 139 (“underfill”- ¶0029) which is comprised of polyimide (¶0029).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu such that a material of the at least one adhesion layer comprises polyimide as taught by Hwang for the purpose of utilizing a suitable and well-known composition for an underfill familiar to those skilled in the art (Hwang ¶0029).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Hwang and Tsai et al. (US 2014/0252597 A1, hereinafter “Tsai”).
Regarding claim 12, Figure 7A of Lu discloses wherein the at least one adhesion layer 52 is an underfill (¶0012).
Lu does not expressly disclose wherein a viscosity of the at least one adhesion layer is smaller than a viscosity of the molding compound.
Figure 11 of Hwang discloses a semiconductor package comprising an underfill 139 (“underfill”- ¶0029) which is comprised of polyimide (¶0029).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu such that a material of the at least one adhesion layer comprises polyimide as taught by Hwang for the purpose of utilizing a suitable and well-known composition for an underfill familiar to those skilled in the art (Hwang ¶0029).
Tsai discloses a molding compound 62 (“molding compound”- ¶0014) comprising Cyclotrisiloxane-hexamethyl (¶0014).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings such that the molding compound comprises Cyclotrisiloxane-hexamethyl as taught by Tsai for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06), specifically utilizing a suitable and well-known composition for the molding compound.
Thus, regarding the limitation, “wherein a viscosity of the at least one adhesion layer is smaller than a viscosity of the molding compound”, the limitation appears to be directed to a property or characteristic of the device, thus "the examiner provides a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flow from the teachings of the applied prior art" (quoting Ex Parte Levy, 17 USPQ2s 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990 under Section 2112.IV of the MPEP), then the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicant to show that the apparatus taught by the prior art reference cannot function or does not have the property or characteristic as recited. This manner of interpreting claim limitations directed to a property or characteristic of the device is hereby adopted for the remainder of the office action.
Therefore, the combined teachings including Hwang and Tsai would inherently meet the limitation, since the combined teachings including Hwang and Tsai discloses the same material compositions for the at least one adhesion layer (i.e., polyimide) and the molding compound (i.e., Cyclotrisiloxane-hexamethyl) as claimed/disclosed in the current application, and thereby the properties and characteristics associated with these structural elements, specifically the respective viscosities and the associated relationship between the respective viscosities of the adhesion layer and molding compound, as recited in the limitation would be inherent in the prior art unless shown otherwise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 21-26 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim is allowed, because the prior art of record including Chen, Chen 601, Tsai and/or Lu, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “a plurality of second integrated circuits, bonded onto the first integrated circuit through first surfaces of the second integrated circuits”, “a circuit substrate, the second integrated circuits bonded to the circuit substrate through second surfaces opposite to the first surfaces of the second integrated circuits” and “an underfill, disposed between the circuit substrate and the second integrated circuits, wherein the at least one adhesion layer is separated from the circuit substrate by the underfill vertically disposed between the at least one adhesion layer and the circuit substrate”.
Claims 2-6 are allowed as being dependent on allowed claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 21, the claim is allowed, because the prior art of record including Chen, Chen 601, Tsai and/or Lu, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “a plurality of second integrated circuits, having second bonding layers bonded onto the first integrated circuit respectively through first surfaces of the second integrated circuits”, “a circuit substrate, the second integrated circuits bonded to the circuit substrate through second surfaces opposite to the first surfaces of the second integrated circuits” and “an underfill, disposed between the circuit substrate and the second integrated circuits, wherein the at least one adhesion layer is separated from the circuit substrate by the underfill vertically disposed between the at least one adhesion layer and the circuit substrate”.
Claims 22-26 are allowed as being dependent on allowed claim 21.
Claim 27 (which depends from allowed claim 21) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights