DETAILED ACTION
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, 4 thru 8, and 12 thru 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung US 2013/0037952 A1 in view of Hong et al. US 2022/0046782 A1 in view of Chen et al. US 2020/0006324 A1. Jung discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1) a semiconductor package comprising a first semiconductor die A, second semiconductor die B, dummy die 112, and mold film 114 wherein the mold film 114 is on the side surface of the first semiconductor die A, second semiconductor die B, and the dummy die 112. In paragraph [0034], Jung discloses the dummy die 112. Jung does not disclose a heat sink wherein side surfaces of the heat protrude outwardly from a central axis of the heat sink and are convex toward an outside of the semiconductor package. However, Hong discloses (see, for example, FIG. 4) a semiconductor package 300 comprising a heat sink (i.e. heat radiation portions) 30-2 whose side surfaces are convex towards an outside of the semiconductor package 300. Further, in paragraph [0090], Hong discloses an exposed surface of the heat radiating portions may be formed to have equal shapes and surface areas, but are not limited to such a configuration, and if necessary, the bonding surface and the exposed surface may be formed to have different shapes and surface areas. In paragraph [0069], Hong discloses the heat sink being a metal material, and in FIG. 4, Hong discloses a mold film 40 being on side surfaces of the heat sink 30-2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a heat sink wherein side surfaces of the heat protrude outwardly from a central axis of the heat sink and being convex toward an outside of the semiconductor package in order to dissipate heat in the semiconductor package with shapes that increase the connection effect between the mold film and the heat sink. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Jung in view of Hong does not disclose the dummy die includes a vertical electrode,
which extends through part of the dummy die, and wherein the vertical electrode is spaced apart vertically from a bottom surface of the heat sink. However, Chen discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1) a semiconductor package 10 comprising a dummy die 300. In paragraph [0027], Chen discloses the dummy die can include “a conductive feature electrically connected to the adjacent die(s). In some embodiments, the conductive feature includes a through substrate via, a metal line, a metal plug, a metal pad or a combination thereof. Specifically, although the dummy die of the application does not include a device, it can function as an electrical connector between adjacent dies. In some embodiments, the dummy die of the application can be utilized to stiffen the package and protect the package against deformation. In some embodiments, the dummy die of the application can be configured to reduce coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch and improve the warpage profile of the resulting package.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a vertical electrode, which extends through part of the dummy die, and wherein the vertical electrode is spaced apart vertically from a bottom surface of the heat sink in order to function as an electrical connector between adjacent dies, and further to stiffen the package and protect the package against deformation.
Regarding claim 4, see, for example, FIG. 1 wherein Hong discloses in a plan view, a
top surface of the mold film 40 surrounding a top surface of the heat sink 30.
Regarding claim 5, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Hong discloses the heat sink 30-2 contacts a top surface of the die 1a.
Regarding claims 6-7, and 18, Jung in view of Hong in view of Chen does not expressly disclose a thickness of the dummy die being greater than or being equal to thicknesses of the first and second semiconductor dies or the thickness of the dummy die being one to five times the thickness of the second semiconductor die; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the dummy die being greater than or is equal to thicknesses of the first and second semiconductor dies or the thickness of the dummy die is one to five times the thickness of the second semiconductor die in order to provide stability, and protect the other non-dummy chips in the semiconductor package according to the preferences of the user, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, see, for example, FIG. 1 wherein Jung discloses the thicknesses of the first semiconductor die A and second semiconductor die B being equal.
Regarding claim 12, Jung in view of Hong in view of Chen does not clearly disclose a top surface of the heat sink being smaller in one or more dimensions than a bottom surface of the heat sink; however, in paragraph [0090], Hong discloses an exposed surface of the heat radiating portions may be formed to have equal shapes and surface areas, but are not limited to such a configuration, and if necessary, the bonding surface and the exposed surface may be formed to have different shapes and surface areas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a top surface of the heat sink being smaller in one or more dimensions than a bottom surface of the heat sink in order to stabilize the base of the heat sink within the semiconductor package, and furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of Hong in view of Chen does not clearly disclose a width in a first horizontal direction of a top surface of the heat sink being 50% to 90% of a width in the first horizontal direction of a bottom surface of the heat sink; however, in paragraph [0090], Hong discloses an exposed surface of the heat radiating portions may be formed to have equal shapes and surface areas, but are not limited to such a configuration, and if necessary, the bonding surface and the exposed surface may be formed to have different shapes and surface areas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a width in a first horizontal direction of a top surface of the heat sink being 50% to 90% of a width in the first horizontal direction of a bottom surface of the heat sink in order to stabilize the base of the heat sink within the semiconductor package, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, see, for example, paragraph [0005] wherein Jung discloses memory devices; further, it was well known in the art to have memory devices in semiconductor chips for providing functions according to the preferences of the user. Further, dummy chips are well known in the art to not have memory since dummy chips are non-functional chips, and only provide non-circuit functions.
Regarding claims 15, and 17, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Hong discloses a top surface of the mold film 40 and a top surface of the heat sink 30-2 being coplanar.
Regarding claim 16, see, for example, the rejection for claim 1 above. Regarding the added limitation “wherein a width of the heat sink decreases away from a top surface of the dummy die”; see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Hong discloses the width of the heat sink 30-2 decreasing away and being less at the top surface of the package 300, and the side surfaces of the heat 30-2 are curved
Regarding claim 19, see, for example, FIG. 1 wherein Hong discloses a top surface of the heat sink 30 having a rectangular shape with rounded corners.
Claim(s) 2, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung US 2013/0037952 A1 in view of Hong et al. US 2022/0046782 A1 in view of Chen et al. US 2020/0006324 A1 as applied to claims 1, 4-8, and 12-19 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. US 2011/0057327 A1. Jung in view of Hong in view of Chen does not disclose the first semiconductor die includes upper connection pads, which are on the first top surface, the second semiconductor die includes first lower connection pads, which are on the second bottom surface, and the upper connection pads and the first lower connection pads contact one another. However, Yoshida discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1) a semiconductor package 1a comprising a first die 3 includes upper connection pads 5a, and second semiconductor die 4a includes first lower connection pads 5d, and the upper connection pads 5a and the first lower connection pads 5d contact one another. It would have been obvious to have the first semiconductor die includes upper connection pads, which are on the first top surface, the second semiconductor die includes first lower connection pads, which are on the second bottom surface, and the upper connection pads and the first lower connection pads contact one another in order to improve the connection between dies in the package while increasing its mechanical stability.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection for claims 2, and 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, and 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any 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.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 PM.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
Eugene Lee
May 26, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights