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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1, 5-9, 11-13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusu (20160372449), in view of Yang (20230063096).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Rusu teaches an semiconductor package comprising:
a first semiconductor chip (fig. 8: 806) that includes a first semiconductor substrate and a through- via (fig. 8: 820) in the first semiconductor substrate;
a second semiconductor chip (fig. 8: 808) on the first semiconductor chip;
a filter structure (fig. 8: 812) extending from a top surface of the first semiconductor chip into the first semiconductor chip (please see fig. 7 which shows a zoomed in picture of 812 which shows a 3D MIM capacitors extending from a top surface of the die to within the die).
Rusu teaches any of the other embodiments may be finished by adding a cover, a heat spreader, or some other or additional components (par. 24) but fails to teach:
a heat spreader including:
a column portion on the filler structure, wherein the column portion is spaced apart from the second semiconductor chip
a roof portion on the second semiconductor chip, wherein the roof portion is connected to the column portion
Yang teaches stacked die, with the bottom die (fig. 13: 21) having TSV (fig. 13: 51) and filler on the top and side of the die (fig. 13: 24 + 27+ 50), and a top die (fig. 13: 56) being stacked atop the bottom die (please see fig. 13) wherein a heat spreader structure is placed atop the stacked die, the heat spreader including:
a column portion (fig. 13: 60) on the filler structure, wherein the column portion is spaced apart from the second semiconductor chip (60 is spaced apart from all chips and provides heat dissipation function in conjunction with portion 62, as taught in par. 80), a roof portion (fig. 13: 62) on the second semiconductor chip, wherein the roof portion is connected to the column portion (62 is spaced apart from 56 by 58).
Please note that such a heat spreading structure, if added to the surface of the top chip of Rusu and would thus be on the Rusu’s capacitor, would take intense heat from the chip stack and would spread the heat over a larger area, acting as a bridge to transfer heat efficiently, as taught Yang, par. 79 and 80. This would save the chip stack in Rusu from future thermal deuteriation and the TSM in Yang would have led a PHOSITA to modify Rusu with Yang’s teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Rusu and Yang are related to similar fields of endeavor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Regarding claim 5, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein in a plan view of the semiconductor package, the filler structure and the through-via do not overlap each other (please see fig. 8 above which teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the heat spreader further includes a protrusion, wherein the roof portion includes a bottom surface facing the second semiconductor chip, and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface, and wherein the protrusion protrudes from the top surface of the roof portion (please see element 62 in Yang, fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the first semiconductor chip further includes a second connection bump (Rusu, fig. 8: 830) on a bottom surface of the first semiconductor chip,wherein the second connection bump is electrically connected to the through-via, and wherein the second connection bump does not overlap with the filler structure (please see Rusu, fig. 8, which shows 830 being connected to 820 via the redistribution layers 816).
Regarding claim 8, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein a bottom surface of the roof portion contacts a top surface of the second semiconductor chip (please see Rusu, fig. 8 which shows this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the filler structure includes copper (Cu) (Yang, par. 14 teaches 24 being comprised of 24).
Regarding claim 11, Rusu teaches an semiconductor package comprising:
a first semiconductor chip (fig. 8: 806) that includes a first semiconductor substrate and a through- via (fig. 8: 820) in the first semiconductor substrate;
a second semiconductor chip (fig. 8: 808) on the first semiconductor chip;
a filter structure (fig. 8: 812) extending from a top surface of the first semiconductor chip into the first semiconductor chip (please see fig. 7 which shows a zoomed in picture of 812 which shows a 3D MIM capacitors extending from a top surface of the die to within the die).
Rusu teaches any of the other embodiments may be finished by adding a cover, a heat spreader, or some other or additional components (par. 24) but fails to teach:
a heat spreader including:
a column portion on the filler structure, wherein the column portion is spaced apart from the second semiconductor chip
a roof portion on the second semiconductor chip, wherein the roof portion is connected to the column portion and a protrusion protruding upwardly from a top surface of the roof portion
Yang teaches stacked die, with the bottom die (fig. 13: 21) having TSV (fig. 13: 51) and filler on the top and side of the die (fig. 13: 24 + 27+ 50), and a top die (fig. 13: 56) being stacked atop the bottom die (please see fig. 13) wherein a heat spreader structure is placed atop the stacked die, the heat spreader including:
a column portion (fig. 13: 60) on the filler structure, wherein the column portion is spaced apart from the second semiconductor chip (60 is spaced apart from all chips and provides heat dissipation function in conjunction with portion 62, as taught in par. 80), a roof portion (fig. 13: 62) on the second semiconductor chip, wherein the roof portion is connected to the column portion (62 is spaced apart from 56 by 58) and a protrusion protruding upwardly from a top surface of the roof portion (please see protrusions of 62).
Please note that such a heat spreading structure, if added to the surface of the top chip of Rusu and would thus be on the Rusu’s capacitor, would take intense heat from the chip stack and would spread the heat over a larger area, acting as a bridge to transfer heat efficiently, as taught Yang, par. 79 and 80. This would save the chip stack in Rusu from future thermal deuteriation and the TSM in Yang would have led a PHOSITA to modify Rusu with Yang’s teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Rusu and Yang are related to similar fields of endeavor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Regarding claim 12, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein in a plan view of the semiconductor package, the roof portion extends across the second semiconductor chip (please see Rusu, fig. 13 which shows this limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein in a plan view of the semiconductor package, the roof portion overlaps an entirety of a top surface of the second semiconductor chip (please see Rusu, fig. 13, which shows this limitation).
Regarding claim 18, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein an inner side surface of the column portion is spaced apart from the second semiconductor chip (please see Rusu, fig. 8 which shows this limitation).
Regarding claim 19, Rusu, in view of Yang, teaches an semiconductor package of claim 11, further comprising a second underfill between the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip (Rusu, par. 32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to based on their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 15 objected to based on their dependency on claim 14.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 17 objected to based on their dependency on claim 16.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818