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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 remain pending.
Applicant’s amendment to Fig. 4 has overcome the drawing objection. Thus, Examiner withdraws the drawing objection.
Applicant’s amendment to the Specification has overcome the Specification objection. However, there is another place in Para. [0048] where the same language appears. Thus, see below for a new objection to the Specification.
Applicant did not address the Claim Objections. Please see Claim Objections below.
Applicant’s amendment of Claim 20 has overcome the 112(b) rejection of that claim. Thus, Examiner is withdrawing the 112(b) rejection of Claim 20. However, please see Claim Objections below for an objection to the language of Claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102 and 103 rejections of the claims. Upon further consideration, Examiner agrees with Applicant that the amendments to Claims 9 and 15 overcome the 103 rejections. Accordingly, Examiner is withdrawing these rejections.
However, Examiner does not agree that the amendments to Claim 1 overcome the 102 rejection of that claim. Examiner has articulated the reasons for this in the 102 Rejection of Claim 1 below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: As discussed in the Claim Objections, the Specification also includes the following language (see Para. [0048] as an example) “…may be the same as or different from a distance between the adjacent two functional dies…..”. For readability, this language (“adjacent two”) should be changed to something like the following “two adjacent”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims all use the language “…disposed between adjacent two…”. As discussed above and in the first OA, this should read “disposed between two adjacent….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states in part “…or between the second regions of the interposer”. In the view of Examiner, Applicant should more clearly phrase this. It appears that Applicant intends to say that the dummy die can be disposed between two adjacent second regions. If this is what is intended, Applicant should make that clear.
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 6 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim states in part “wherein the third die is further disposed between the adjacent two conductive connectors.” In Fig. 1E, Applicant shows the third die between two adjacent connectors, and the dummy die between two different adjacent connectors. Applicant should make this clear by stating, for example “wherein the third is disposed between a third connector and a fourth connector, wherein the third and fourth connectors are adjacent.” See Claim Objections for suggestions on clarifying claim 1 in this manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by US20240021640A1 (Liao).
Regarding Claim 1, Liao discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 1, el. 10, Para. [0048]), comprising: an interposer (Fig. 1, el. 270, Para. [0055]), comprising a first region and a second region (see annotated Fig. 1 below); a first die (Fig. 1, el. 110, Para. [0048]) and a second die (Fig. 1, el. 110, Para. [0048]), bonded to a first surface of the interposer (Fig. 1, Para. [0064]), the first die disposed in the first region (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and the second die disposed in the second region (see annotated Fig. 1 below); a third die (Fig. 1, el. 240, Para. [0055]) and a dummy die (Fig. 1, el. 250, Para. [0055]), bonded to a second surface (Fig. 1, el. 272, Para. [0060] and [0061]. Note that Para. [0061] states “…in some embodiments, the dummy die 250 may be designed to be in contact with the second surface 272 of the upper redistribution layer 270.” Examiner is interpreting this to mean that the dummy die may be bonded to interposer 270) opposite to the first surface of the interposer (Fig. 1), wherein the third die is disposed in the first region and the dummy die is disposed in the second region (see annotated Fig. 1 below); a plurality of conductive connectors disposed on the second surface of the interposer (see annotated Fig. 1 below, el. 220, Para. [0056]) disposed on the second surface of the interposer (Para. [0060]), wherein the dummy die is disposed between adjacent two conductive connectors (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the dummy die is between two adjacent conductive pillars); and a plurality of solder regions on the conductive connectors (see annotated Fig. 1 below, el. 280, Para. [0056]), wherein the conductive connectors are disposed between the interposer and the solder regions (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Liao discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the first die and the third die are overlapped along a stacking direction of the first die and the interposer, and the second die and the dummy die are overlapped along the stacking direction (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Liao discloses the semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the third die is electrically connected to the first die through the interposer (Para. [0064]), and the dummy die is electrically isolated form the second die (Para. [0059]).
Regarding Claim 6, Liao discloses the semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the third die is further disposed between two adjacent conductive (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Liao discloses the semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the third die is an Large scale integrated (LSI) chip (Para. [0059] – where the third chip is described as a controller chip, which is an LSI chip).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of US20190096825A1 (Kim).
Regarding Claim 4, Liao discloses the semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the interposer comprises at least one active conductive pattern (Para. [0060] – “The upper redistribution layer 270 is electrically connected to the second conductive pillars 241 of the active device 240….”), and the third die is electrically connected to the at least one active conductive pattern (Fig. 1).
Liao does not disclose that the interposer comprises at least one dummy conductive pattern and the dummy die electrically connected to the least one dummy conductive pattern.
Kim discloses a semiconductor package (Fig. 9, el. 100, Para. [0073]) comprising a dummy die (Fig. 9, el. 132, Para. [0073]), an interposer (Fig. 9, el. 140, Para. [0073]) where the dummy die may be electrically connected to at least one dummy conductive pattern (Para. [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to replace one of the active patterns in Liao with a dummy conductive pattern and connect the dummy die to that pattern, in the manner described by Kim. As disclosed by Kim, this may be helpful to perform a warpage reduction function (Para. [0089]).
Regarding Claim 5, Liao in view of Kim discloses the semiconductor device of claim 4, wherein the at least one active conductive pattern and the at least one dummy conductive pattern are provided within a same dielectric layer (Liao, Para. [0060]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao.
Regarding Claim 6, Liao discloses the semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the third die is further disposed between two adjacent conductive (Fig. 1), and the conductive pillars are connected to conductive connectors (Fig. 1, el. 280, Para. [0055])
Liao does not disclose that the third die and dummy die are respectively disposed between two adjacent conductive pillars.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the conductive connectors between the conductive pillars (the ones that are not connected to any conductive pillars). This has the benefit of simplifying the design and saving material.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao.
Regarding Claim 7, Liao discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising an underfill surrounding the third die and the dummy die (Para. [0058]).
Liao does not disclose that the underfill surrounds the interposer.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the underfill so that it surrounds the interposer. This would have the benefit of providing better structural support for the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 15-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, none of the prior art of record teaches, suggests or renders
obvious, either alone or in combination a circuit substrate, wherein the interposer is bonded to the circuit substrate along a first direction, the functional die and the dummy die are disposed between the interposer and the circuit substrate, and the dummy die is physically separated from the circuit substrate by a gap along the first direction.
Claims 10-13 and 21 are allowed because they depend on Claim 9. Claims 16-20 are allowed because they depend on Claim 15.
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 ROHIT PARTHASARATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-2572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5p.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/ROHIT PARTHASARATHY/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights