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 Group I in the reply filed on 12/30/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There are discrepancies with the use of the term “over” found in Claim 14. For example, the specification establishes that the “circuit substrate” is element 300. A “redistribution layer” is RD1 or RD2. And the “lid structure” is 502. Looking at Applicant’s Figure 13 (The only Figure with a Lid element) the Claims are not found. RD1 and RDS are the regions immediately attached to elements 102A and 102B, which are attached to bridge 214. However the circuit substrate is element 300, which is NOT “OVER” the RD1 or RD2 elements. It’s in fact, underneath those elements. It is suggested that the term “over” be used to correspond with what is shown in the Figures to resolve this issue.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al US 2022/0122922.
Pertaining to claim 1, Chen teaches a package structure, comprising:
a first semiconductor die 50A and a second semiconductor die 50B;
an insulating encapsulant 120 laterally surrounding the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die, wherein the insulating encapsulant comprises a first portion sandwiched in between the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die, the first portion has a first recessed part adjacent to an edge of the first semiconductor die, and a second recessed part adjacent to an edge of the second semiconductor die See Figure 14B element 123 (see element 123 in Figure 14A marked up below; and
a redistribution layer 122 disposed on and electrically connected to the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 5, Chen teaches package the structure according to claim 1, wherein a depth of the first recessed part and a depth of the second recessed part (elements 125) is in a range of 1µm to 10µm. See [0063] (125 described as having the same height H as 121/118, see [0046])
Pertaining to claim 7, Chen teaches package the package structure according to claim 1, wherein the first portion of the insulating encapsulant further comprises a protruding part that is located in between the first recessed part and the second recessed part The portion between the recesses protrudes, see element 123 and Figure 14B.
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) 2, 3, 10, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al US 2020/0243449.
Pertaining to claim 2, Chen teaches the package according to claim 1 above but does not teach a bridge structure connecting the first and second semiconductor dies. However, bridge dies were known in the art at the time the invention was filed. For example, Chiang teaches a package structure comprising:
a bridge structure 230 disposed on the first semiconductor die 210 and the second semiconductor die 220, and electrically connected to the first semiconductor die, the second semiconductor die and the redistribution layer 292 see Figure 4; and
a second insulating encapsulant 254 laterally surrounding the bridge structure 230 see Figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Chiang into the method of Chen by adding a bridge die connecting the first and second semiconductor dies. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chiang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of expanding the function of the two dies by allowing them to be in electrical communication through an intermediate bridge die, the bridge die providing shared functions between the two and/or acting as a pathway for signals between the first and second dies [0002]. See Figure 4 marked up below
PNG
media_image2.png
445
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 3, Chen in view of Chiang teaches the package the package structure according to claim 2, further comprising:
first conductive features disposed on the first semiconductor die and the second die, and electrically connecting the first semiconductor die and the second die to the bridge structure;
second conductive features disposed on the first semiconductor die and the second die; and
through vias disposed on the second conductive features and electrically connecting the second conductive features to the redistribution layer. See Chiang Figure 4 marked up below
PNG
media_image3.png
392
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 10, Chen teaches a package structure package structure, comprising:
two semiconductor dies 50A/50B;
a first portion of an insulating encapsulant disposed in between the two semiconductor dies, wherein a first surface of the first portion is a planar surface, and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the first portion has a protruding part see Figure 14A marked up below, the portion between the recesses protrudes, see element 123 and Figure 14B;
a second portion of the insulating encapsulant surrounding the first portion and the two semiconductor dies, wherein a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface of the second portion are planar surfaces (Figure 14A is marked up below twice, showing these features);
a thermal interface material 127 disposed on backside surfaces of the two semiconductor dies;
PNG
media_image1.png
468
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
432
533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chen fails to teach a bridge structure 230 partially overlapped with the two semiconductor dies 210 and electrically connecting the two semiconductor dies to one another see Chen Figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Chiang into the method of Chen by adding a bridge die connecting the first and second semiconductor dies. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chiang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of expanding the function of the two dies by allowing them to be in electrical communication through an intermediate bridge die, the bridge die providing shared functions between the two and/or acting as a pathway for signals between the first and second dies [0002].
PNG
media_image2.png
445
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 13, Chen in view of Chiang teaches the package the structure according to claim 10, wherein a height of the protruding part (area between elements 125 in Chen) is in a range of 1µm to 10µm See [0063] (125 described as having the same height H as 121/118, see [0046])
Pertaining to claim 15, Chen in view of Chiang teaches the package the structure according to claim 10, but is silent on the spacing (width of first portion) of the first and second semiconductor die. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the spacing/width through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the spacing/width is a result-effective variable (size of device footprint, function of device) and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above
Pertaining to claim 4, Chen in view of Chiang teaches the package the structure according to claim 1, but is silent on the spacing (width of first portion) of the first and second semiconductor die. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the spacing/width through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the spacing/width is a result-effective variable (size of device footprint, function of device) and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al US 2020/0243449 and further in view of Chen et al US 2023/0065884.
Pertaining to claim 14, Chen in view of Chiang teaches the package structure according to claim 10, further comprising:
a redistribution layer (122 of Chen and 292 of Chiang) disposed on the bridge structure 230 of Chiang and electrically connected to the bridge structure and the two semiconductor dies See Figure 4 of Chiang;
Chen and Chiang fail to teach wherein
a circuit substrate disposed over (See 112 rejection above, Examiner is using Applicant’s figures to advance prosecution) the redistribution layer and electrically connected to the redistribution layer; and
a lid structure disposed on the circuit substrate, wherein the lid structure is covering the two semiconductor dies and the bridge structure, and is in contact with the thermal interface material.
Chen 2 teaches:
a redistribution layer 130 disposed on the bridge structure 140 and electrically connected to the bridge structure and the two semiconductor dies 110;
a circuit substrate 200 disposed over (See 112 rejection above, Examiner is using Applicant’s figures to advance prosecution) the redistribution layer 130 and electrically connected to the redistribution layer; and
a lid structure 330 disposed on the circuit substrate 200, wherein the lid structure is covering the two semiconductor dies 110 and the bridge structure 140, and is in contact with the thermal interface material 305.
Given the 112 rejection above, the feature missing from Chen and Chiang was the lid connected to the thermal interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the lid taught by Chen 2 with the inventions of Chen and Chiang. The ordinary artisan would have modified Chen/Chiang for the purpose of protection and thermal dissipations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 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 reasons for indicating allowable subject matter are:
Pertaining to claim 6, the prior art does not teach nor suggest that the first and second recessed parts have different depths.
Pertaining to claim 8, the prior art does not teach nor suggest that the thermal interface material is filled into the first and second recessed parts (prior art teaches away from this explicitly)
Pertaining to claim 11, the prior art does not teach nor suggest where the thermal interface material partially covers side surfaces of the two semiconductor dies (prior art teaches away from this explicitly)
Pertaining to claim 12, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein air spaces are located between the protruding part of the first portion and the two semiconductor dies (prior art teaches away from this explicitly)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817