22Notice 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 .
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Ochiai, et la, US 10168541 B2 (hereinafter Ochiai), and Yeh, et la, US 20220230969 A1 (hereinafter Yeh)
Jung discloses the following:
a package substrate; a chip structure on the package substrate; the chip structure; and a stiffener structure disposed at an edge of the package substrate, wherein the stiffener structure includes a first stiffener and a second stiffener that are sequentially stacked, wherein the second stiffener includes a material different from a material of the first stiffener, (Abstract)
Although Jung does not mention “the second stiffener includes a material different from a material of the first stiffener,” Jung states, “The first stiffener has a first coefficient of thermal expansion, and the second stiffener has a second coefficient of thermal expansion different from the first coefficient of thermal expansion.” That is “second stiffener includes a material different from a material of the first stiffener” because the same material has the same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Yung dose not disclose the following:
a peripheral structure, but Ochiai disclosed it. (TABLE 1)
wherein the second stiffener has a second width wider than a first width of the first stiffener and vertically overlaps the peripheral structure. But Yeh disclosed it. (paragraph [0047])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Ochiai’s peripheral structure to provide Input/Output (I/O) routing, physical protection, and thermal management, etc. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also substitute Yeh’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Ochiai, et la, US 10168541 B2 (hereinafter Ochiai).
Jung does not disclose the following:
The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the peripheral structure is at least one of a capacitor, a resistor, and a dam. But Ochiai disclosed it. (paragraph (41) where barrier = dam)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Ochiai’s peripheral structure to provide Input/Output (I/O) routing, physical protection, and thermal management, etc.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai, et la, US 10168541 B2 (hereinafter Ochiai), and further in view of Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung)
Ochiai does not disclose the following:
The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of
the first stiffener is smaller than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the second stiffener. But
Jung disclosed it (Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Jung’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Boja, et la, US 10764996 B1 (hereinafter Boja)
Jung does not disclose the following:
wherein the stiffener structure further includes a third stiffener stacked on the second stiffener, wherein the third stiffener includes a material different from a material of at least one of the first stiffener and the second stiffener, and wherein the third stiffener overlaps the chip structure. But, Boja disclosed it. (paragraph (33))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Boja’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Kao, et la, US 20200258807 A1 (hereinafter Kao)
Jung does not disclose the following:
a first height of an upper surface of the stiffener structure is higher than a second height of an upper surface of the chip structure from an upper surface of the package substrate, and wherein the first height is 1.1 to 3 times the second height. But Kao disclosed it. (paragraph [0013])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kao’s stiffener structure to protect the chip structure. To protect the chip structure, stiffener structure must be higher than the chip structure, otherwise the chip structure would be exposed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Zhao, et la, US 20030146511 A1 (hereinafter Zhao)
Jung does not disclose the following:
the stiffener structure further includes an adhesive layer interposed between the first stiffener and the second stiffener. But Zhao disclosed it. (paragraph [0109])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Zhao’s stiffener and adhesive structure to let first stiffener and the second stiffener to hold together.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Yeh, et la, US 20220230969 A1 (hereinafter Yeh)
Jung does not disclose the following:
one sidewall of the first stiffener is aligned with one sidewall of the second stiffener, or wherein a center of the first stiffener vertically overlaps a center of the second stiffener. But Yeh disclosed it. (paragraph [0047])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Yeh’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Kang, et la, US 20230207487 A1 (hereinafter Kang) and Boja, et la, US 10764996 B1 (hereinafter Boja)
Jung does not disclose the following:
the stiffener structure further includes a third stiffener adjacent to a side surface of the second stiffener or a side surface of the first stiffener, the third stiffener surrounding both the chip structure and the peripheral structure. But Kang disclosed it. (paragraph [0067])
the third stiffener includes a material different from a material of at least one of the first stiffener and the second stiffener. But Boja disclosed it. (paragraph (33))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kang’s and Boja’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Boja, et la, US 10764996 B1 (hereinafter Boja)
Jung does not disclose the following:
the first stiffener surrounds both the chip structure and the peripheral structure when viewed in a plan view, and wherein the second stiffener extends to cover the chip structure.
But Boja disclosed it. (paragraph (18)(34))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Boja’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Mertol, Atila, US 5866943 A
(hereinafter Mertol)
Jung does not disclose the following:
a thermal boundary material layer interposed between the second stiffener and the chip structure. But Mertol disclosed it. (Description (10))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Mertol’s thermal interface material to provide thermal paths for heat to flow from chip to the ambient via stiffener.
Claims 11-17 are acceptable.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Kang, et la, US 20230207487 A1 (hereinafter Kang)
Jung discloses the following:
a package substrate; a chip structure on the package substrate; and a stiffener structure disposed at an edge of the package substrate and surrounding the chip structure, wherein the stiffener structure includes a first stiffener and a second stiffener formed of different materials, and wherein the first stiffener and the second stiffener surround the chip structure.
Yung dose not disclose the following:
when viewed in a plan view, and the second stiffener is adjacent to an inner wall of the first stiffener. But Kang disclosed it. (paragraph [0059])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kang’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Kang, et la, US 20230207487 A1 (hereinafter Kang)
Yung dose not disclose the following:
The semiconductor package of claim 18, wherein a height of an upper surface of the first stiffener is different from a height of an upper surface of the second stiffener. But Kang disclosed it. (paragraph [0059])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kang’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1 (hereinafter Jung) and further in view of Kang, et la, US 20230207487 A1 (hereinafter Kang) and Boja, et la, US 10764996 B1 (hereinafter Boja)
Jung does not disclose the following:
The semiconductor package of claim 18, wherein the stiffener structure further comprises a third stiffener disposed on at least one of the first stiffener and the second stiffener, But Kang disclosed it. (paragraph [0067])
the third stiffener includes a material different from a material of at least one of the first stiffener and the second stiffener. But Boja disclosed it. (paragraph (33))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kang’s and Boja’s stiffener structure to protect the central and peripheral structures.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Jung, et la, US 20240079349 A1
Cho, Yun-Rae, US 8823171 B2
Yeh, et la, US 20220230969 A1
Ochiai, et la, US 10168541 B2
Boja, et la, US 10764996 B1
Kang, et la, US 20230207487 A1
Zhao, et la, US 20030146511 A1
Kao, et la, US 20200258807 A1
Mertol, Atila, US 5866943 A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0313. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at 4089187532. 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.
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights