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 with traverse of claim 14-19 and 21-24 in the reply filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
That there is a strong functional causality and structural dependence exist between the claimed device and the claimed method.
The species are not patentably distinct.
These arguments are not found persuasive because despite the strong functional causality and structural dependence existence between the claimed device and the claimed method, a device of other prior arts can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, however, the method of forming the device of the prior arts may be different from those of the claimed invention. Thus, searching for the device claims and method claims of the present invention would result in different search approach and thus resulting in a burden on the examiner. For example, the prior arts relied upon in the rejection of the device claims hereinafter fail to disclose the claim method.
The argument that the species are not patentably distinct is also not persuasive because despite the species being generally similar, each of the species has a unique structure not found in another of the species.
Species 1 (Fig. 1L): discloses a bridge element without a via connecting the bridge element to the redistribution structure of the device.
Species 2 (Fig. 2): discloses a bridge element with a via connecting the bridge element to the redistribution structure of the device.
Species 3 (Fig. 3J): discloses a structure similar to species 1, however the species differ in that, species 3 has the intermediate layer of the device spaced from the chips of the device.
Species 4 (Fig. 4): discloses a structure similar to species 2, however the species differ in that, species 4 has the intermediate layer of the device spaced from the chips of the device.
Despite these “subtle” differences, searching for each of the subtle differences would require different search approach and thus resulting in a burden on the examiner
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 24 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.
The claim is rejected specifically in view of the limitation “the base dielectric layer does not fill a gap between adjacent two of the first chip pads.” The limitation is found to be indefinite because in claim 14 upon which claim 24 depends, it is claimed that the base dielectric layer fills a gap between adjacent two of the chips. Thus, it is unclear whether the limitation is a typographical error and not intended to be claimed or it is supposed to be the recitation of another inventive concept/component of the invention.
For examination purpose, the limitation will be considered a typographical error not intended to be part of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically in claim 1, it has been claimed the base dielectric layer comprises a silicate composite material or a composite material suitable for chemical-mechanical polishing. Thus in a situation where the base dielectric layer is a composite material suitable for chemical-mechanical polishing (as relied upon in the rejection of claim 1), claim 16 does not further limit the limitation of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements
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.
Claims 14, 17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teh et al. [US PPGUB 20190393180] in view of Chavali et al. [US PPGUB 20190221447] (hereinafter Teh and Chavali).
Regarding claim 14, Teh teaches an electronic package, comprising:
a sub-package (200, Fig. 2), comprising:
a plurality of chips (102A/102B, Para 18);
a base dielectric layer (Ajinomoto dielectric buildup layer 108A, Para 22), covering the chips and exposing active surfaces and back surfaces of at least part of the chips (Fig. 2/6A), and a material of the base dielectric layer comprises a silicate composite material or a composite material suitable for chemical-mechanical polishing (wherein Ajinomoto buildup film is an epoxy-based laminate composite –Chavali, Para 33, and wherein it is known that in the art that Ajinomoto buildup film is suitable for chemical-mechanical polishing),
at least one bridge element (114, Para 19), respectively partially overlapping with the adjacent chips (Fig. 2), wherein a plurality of bridging pads (116C/D, Para 19) of the bridge element are respectively bonded to a plurality of first chip pads (116A/B, Para 19) of the active surfaces of the adjacent chips (Fig. 2);
an intermediate dielectric layer (Ajinomoto dielectric buildup layer 108B, Para 22), disposed on the chips and the base dielectric layer and surrounding the bridge element (Fig. 2/6B);
a plurality of intermediate conductive vias (106, Para 21, Fig. 24), passing through the intermediate dielectric layer and respectively connected to a plurality of second chip pads (104A/B, Para 18) of the active surfaces of the chips (Fig. 2);
a redistribution structure (108C/D/material 104/106 in them, Fig. 2), disposed on the intermediate dielectric layer and the intermediate conductive vias (Fig. 2); and
a plurality of conductive bumps (110, Para 21), disposed on the redistribution structure (Fig. 2A).
Teh does not specifically disclose that the base dielectric layer fills a gap between adjacent two of the chips.
However, as disclosed by Teh and as depicted in Fig. 2/6A, a person having ordinary skills in the art could assume/find it obvious that the base dielectric layer fills a gap between adjacent two of the chips (Para 30 – first build layer 108A can be formed around the dice 102A-B and over or on the substrate carrier 120. The first buildup layer 108A can leave the low density interconnect pads 104A-B and the high density interconnect pads 116A-B exposed).
Referring to another embodiment of Teh (Fig. 4), Teh discloses filling the gap between adjacent two of the chips (102A/B) with base dielectric layer (108A).
Thus, at least in view of the further disclosure by Teh, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art to have the base dielectric layer fills a gap between adjacent two of the chips in the embodiment of Fig. 2/6A in order to have a more physically reliable structure.
Regarding claim 17, Teh teaches an electronic package wherein the base dielectric layer comprises a composite material (wherein Ajinomoto buildup film is an epoxy-based laminate composite –Chavali, Para 33) or an inorganic compound suitable for chemical- mechanical polishing.
Regarding claim 23, Teh teaches an electronic package wherein the bridging pads are respectively directly bonded to the first chip pads (Fig. 2, Para 25).
Regarding claim 24 as interpreted for examination, Teh teaches an electronic package wherein the base dielectric layer does not fill a gap between adjacent two of the bridging pads (Fig. 2), .
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teh in view of Chavali and further in view of Lin et al. [US PPGUB 20230089263] (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Teh teaches the limitation of claim 14 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose wherein a thickness of the bridge element is less than a thickness of the chips.
However, as depicted by Teh, the thickness of the bridge element seems less than a thickness of the chips (Fig. 2).
At least in view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bridge element have a thickness less than a thickness of the chips at least based on the rationale of “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143.I.E).
Moreover, Lin teaches an electronic package comprising a bridge element (36, Para 30) having a thickness less than a thickness of chips (18, Para 30) of the package (Para 15/40).
In view of such teaching by Lin, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention comprise the dimensions taught by Lin at least based on the rationale of applying known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way or relying on known teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teh in view of Chavali and further in view of Mallik et al. [US PPGUB 20200273784] (hereinafter Mallik).
Regarding claim 18, the modified invention of Teh teaches the limitation of claim 14 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose wherein a material of the intermediate dielectric layer comprises a silicate nanocomposite material, silicon oxide, derivatives of silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon carbonitride, polyimide, or benzocyclobutene.
Referring to the invention of Mallik, Mallik teaches other known materials of a buildup layer to include benzocyclobutene or polyimide among others (Para 62).
In view of such teaching by Mallik, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention comprise the teachings of Mallik at least based on the rationale of simple substitution of one known element/structure with a suitable another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teh in view of Chavali and further in view of Hiner et al. [US PPGUB 20200227385] (hereinafter Hiner).
Regarding claim 19, the modified invention of Teh teaches the limitation of claim 14 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose wherein a distribution density of the first chip pads is greater than a distribution density of the second chip pads.
However, as depicted by Teh, the wherein a distribution density of the first chip pads is greater than a distribution density of the second chip pads (Fig. 2).
At least in view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bridge element have a thickness less than a thickness of the chips at least based on the rationale of “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143.I.E).
Moreover, Hiner teaches an electronic package wherein the connectivity structure coupling chips (Die1/Die2) to bridge element (216b, Para 98) have a distribution density greater than the connectivity structure coupling the (via 214) to the chips.
In view of such teaching by Hiner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention comprise the dimensions taught by Hiner at least based on the rationale of applying known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way or relying on known teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teh in view of Chavali and further in view of Kim et al. [US PPGUB 20180294216] (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 21, the modified invention of Teh teaches the limitation of claim 14 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose that the electronic package further comprising: a circuit carrier, wherein the sub-package is installed on the circuit carrier.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim discloses the electronic package (100, Fig. 1B), the electronic package comprising a sub-package (LV2/LV3), wherein the electronic package further comprising: a circuit carrier (10, Para 16, Fig. 1B), wherein the sub-package is installed on the circuit carrier (Fig. 1B).
In view of such teaching by Kim, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention comprise the teachings of Kim (circuit carrier) at least to provide support or electrical circuitry to the sub-package (Kim, Para 16/18).
Regarding claim 22, the modified invention of Teh specifically in view of Kim teaches an electronic package further comprising:
a plurality of conductive balls (2, Para 19), connected to the circuit carrier (Fig. 1B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights