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 without traverse of Invention I, Species I (Fig. 1) in the reply filed on April 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-10 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and Species 2-5, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, claim 1-5 and 11-19 are ready for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2014/032129, hereinafter “Cho”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0295679) and Beak et al. (US 2020/0321711, hereinafter “Beak”), with Katagiri et al. (US 2011/0062578, hereinafter “Katagiri”) used as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches in Fig. 1 (shown below) and related text an electronic device comprising:
a first package (101, Fig. 1 and ¶[0045]), the first package comprising a first substrate (1, Fig. 1 and ¶[0046]) and a first semiconductor chip (10, Fig. 1 and ¶[0046]) mounted on the first substrate (Fig. 1);
a second package (102, Fig. 1 and ¶[0045]) mounted on the first package (Fig. 1), the second package comprising a second substrate (30, Fig. 1 and ¶[0047]), a second semiconductor chip (40a, 40b, Fig. 1 and ¶[0047]) mounted on the second substrate, a sealing material (36, Fig. 1 and ¶[0047]) surrounding an upper surface of the second substrate and the second semiconductor chip (Fig. 1), and a conformal conductive coating (50, 60, Fig. 1 and ¶[0049]) on at least an upper surface of the sealing material (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cho, however, does not explicitly teach that the first package is mounted on a base substrate and that a conductive fixing portion is secured to a ground pad at an upper surface of the base substrate, where a shielding can is secured to the base substrate by the conductive fixing portion, the shielding can comprising a side portion surrounding the first and second packages, and a metal paste between the shielding can and the conformal conductive coating, wherein the metal paste contacts the shielding can and the conformal conductive coating.
Kim, in a similar field of endeavor teaches in Fig. 9 and related text that semiconductor packages (115, 117 and 119, Fig. 9) can be mounted on a base substrate (e.g. 110, Fig. 9 and ¶[0064]) where a shielding can (130, Fig. 9 and ¶¶[0077]) is secured to a ground pad (114, Fig. 9 and ¶[0066]) at an upper surface of the base substrate (110, Fig. 9), the shielding can comprising a side portion surrounding semiconductor packages, and metal paste (160, Fig. 9 and ¶¶[0081] and [0149], it is noted that the materials disclosed by Kim for element 16 are considered metal paste as evidenced by Katagiri, ¶[0107]) is formed between the shielding can (130, Fig. 9) and a conformal conductive coating (150, Fig. 9 and ¶[0146]), wherein the metal paste contacts the shielding can (130, Fig. 9) and the conformal conductive coating (150, Fig. 9) in order to shield semiconductor packages of the electronic device from electromagnetic interference (EMI) (¶[0008]).
Thus, thus since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount first semiconductor package disclosed by Cho on a base substrate, disclosed by Kim, where a shielding can is secured to the ground pad at an upper surface of the base substrate, and comprises a side portion surrounding the first and second packages, and a metal paste is between the shielding can and the conformal conductive coating, wherein the metal paste contacts the shielding can and the conformal conductive coating in order to shield semiconductor packages of the electronic device from electromagnetic interference.
Lastly, while Cho and Kim, do not explicitly teach that a conductive fixing portion is secured to a ground pad, where a shielding can is secured to the base substrate by the conductive fixing portion, using a conductive fixing portion to secure a shielding to a base substrate is well known in the art as evidenced by Beak. Specifically, Beak in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 2 and related text that a shielding can (280, Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0075] and [0082]) can be secured to a base substrata (200, Fig. 2 and ¶[0076]) using a conductive fixing portion (285, Fig. 2 and ¶[0076]) in order to couple shielding can to the base substrate (¶[0076]).
Thus, thus since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conductive fixing portion disclosed by Beak, to secure the shielding can disclosed by Cho and Kim, to the ground pad at an upper surface of the base substrate in order to couple shielding can to the base substrate.
Regarding claim 2 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak discloses wherein the shielding can (Kim, 130, Fig. 9) further comprises:
an upper portion extending from the side portion (Kim, Fig. 9), wherein the upper portion comprises a window that exposes an upper surface of the conformal conductive coating (Kim, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak discloses wherein the side portion (Kim, 130, Fig. 9) extends from an upper surface of the base substrate (Kim, 110, Fig. 9) in a direction that is perpendicular to the upper surface of the base substrate.
Regarding claim 15 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak discloses, wherein the conductive fixing portion is a clip-type structure (Beak, 285, Fig. 2 and ¶[0076]) that clamps the shielding can (Beak Fig. 2), or is solder soldered between the shielding can and the ground pad.
Regarding claim 16 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak discloses, wherein the ground pad comprises a plurality of ground pads (Kim, 114, Fig. 9 shows at least two ground pads) that extend around a region in which the first and second packages are mounted on the base substrate (Kim, Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, Kim and Beak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2019/0164938, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 12 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 and includes wherein the conformal conductive coating comprises a metal (Kim, ¶[0049]). Cho, Kim and Beak, however, do not explicitly teach that the metal is silver (Au) or has a structure in which stainless steel-copper (Cu)-stainless steel are sequentially stacked. Nonetheless, using silver as the conformal conductive coating disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak, is well-known in the art as evidenced by Lee (¶[0056]), and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material for its intended purpose.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the conformal conductive coating disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak from silver, as doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material for its intended purpose.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, Kim and Beak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0037937, hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 13 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Cho, Kim and Beak, however, do not explicitly teach wherein the conformal conductive coating is in further contact with a side surface of the sealing material.
Park, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 1B and related text that the conductive coating (200, Fig. 1B and ¶[0055]) similar to that disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak can be formed on the sides of the sealing material (192U, Fig. 1B and ¶[0062]) in addition to the top of the sealing material in order to protect the first and second packages (110L, 110, Fig. 1B and ¶[0055]) from electromagnetic interference (EMI).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the conformal conductive coating disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak on the side surface of the sealing material in order to protect the first and second packages from electromagnetic interference.
Regarding claim 14 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Cho, Kim and Beak, however, do not explicitly teach wherein the conformal conductive coating extends to a side surface of the second substrate and is electrically insulated from a ground pad of the second substrate.
Park, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 1B and related text that the conductive coating (200, Fig. 1B and ¶[0055]), similar to that disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak, can be formed on the sides of the sealing material (192U, Fig. 1B and ¶[0062]) in addition to the top of the sealing material in order to protect the first and second packages (110L, 110, Fig. 1B and ¶[0055]) from electromagnetic interference (EMI).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the conformal conductive coating disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak on the side surface of the sealing material in order to protect the first and second packages from electromagnetic interference. It is noted that the conductive coating, disclosed by Park, extending along the top and side surfaces of the sealing material does not contact any of the pads of the second substrate, and thus is considered as being insulated from a ground pad of the second substrate.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, Kim and Beak as applied to claim 1 above, and further IM et al. (US 2012/0119346, hereinafter “IM”).
Regarding claim 17 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Cho, Kim and Beak, however, do not explicitly teach wherein the base substrate comprises a connection member on a lower surface thereof, and further comprising a metal wiring pattern that electrically connects the connection member to the ground pad.
IM, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 1 and related text, that a base substrate similar to that disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak can include a connection member (230c, Fig. 1 and ¶[0047]) on a lower surface thereof (Fig. 1), and a metal wiring pattern (220s, Fig. 1 and ¶[0045]) that electrically connects the connection member to the ground pad (¶[0045]) in order to allow for connection of the electronic device to other devices, including ground thereof.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a connection member on a lower surface of the base substrate, and a metal wiring pattern that electrically connects the connection member to the ground pad, as disclosed by IM, in the electronic device disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak, in order to allow for connection of the electronic device of Cho, Kim and Beak to other devices, including ground thereof.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, Kim and Beak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (US 2015/0303075, hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 18 (1), the combined teaching of Cho, Kim and Beak was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Cho, Kim and Beak, however, do not explicitly teach wherein the first semiconductor chip is an application processor (AP), and the second semiconductor chip is a DRAM. Nonetheless, using an application processor (AP) as a first semiconductor chip, and DRAM as the second semiconductor chip in the electronic device disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Han (Fig. 4 and ¶¶[0057] and [0073}) in order to meet specific design requirements for the electronic device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an application processor (AP) as a first semiconductor chip, and DRAM as the second semiconductor chip, as disclosed by Han, for the first and second semiconductor chips disclosed by Cho, Kim and Beak in order to meet specific design requirements for the electronic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed and claim(s) 3-5 is/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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding an electronic device that includes a shielding can having an upper portion extending from a side portion where an upper surface of the upper portion of the shielding can and an upper surface of a conformal conductive coating formed on at least an upper surface of a sealing material surrounding an upper surface of a second substate and a second semiconductor chip, are coplanar, in combination with all other elements of the electronic device recited in the claim(s). The closest prior art of record to Cho, Kim and Beak fails to disclose the above noted elements of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding an electronic device that includes a thermal interface material (TIM) configured to cover at least a portion of an upper surface of an upper portion of a shielding can and the upper surface of the conformal conductive coating, in combination with all other elements of the electronic device recited in the claim(s). The closest prior art of record to Cho, Kim and Beak fails to disclose the above noted elements of the claim. Claim 5, which directly depends from claim 4 and which includes all limitations of claim 4 is allowed for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding an electronic device that includes a shielding can electrically connected to a ground pad of a base substrate and configured to extend around at least a side surface of a package on package (PoP) package that includes an upper package having a conformal conductive coating on at least its upper surface, and a lower package supporting the upper package, the shielding can comprising a window that exposes an upper surface of the conformal conductive coating with a metal material configured to electrically connect the conformal conductive coating and the shielding can in combination with all other elements of the electronic device recited in the claim(s). The closest prior art of record to Cho, Kim and Beak fails to disclose the above noted elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights