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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW111139305, filed on 10/17/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Housekeeping
The examiner notes that translations of foreign patient documents are relied upon in this application. Translations of these documents are provided with this action as a reference. For the purposes of this action, all paragraph numbers cited will refer to the paragraph number in the corresponding translation.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the language "the heat sink metal is electrically insulated with the integrated circuit" of claim 1 is unclear; additionally, the language "the heat sink metals are electrically insulated with the integrated circuit" is similarly unclear. The examiner notes that it is likely meant that the heat sink metal is electrically insulated from the integrated circuit (meaning that the two do not exchange substantial amounts of charge). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word "separate" is grammatically incorrect in the following language: ". . . an insulating layer located between the heat sink metal and the integrated circuit, wherein the insulating layer wraps the heat sink metal and separate the heat sink metal from the active region.” The examiner notes that the word “separates,” instead of “separate” was likely intended in the preceding language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5, and 8-9 are 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.
Claims 5, and 8-9 recite the limitation "wherein a number of the at least one heat sink is plural.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “a heat sink metal” is introduced in claim 1, but claim 1 does not contain the language “at least one” or equivalent language. For the purposes of this action, the scope of this claim will include a plurality of heat sink metals.
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, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auburger (US 6867492 B2).
Auburger anticipates the following limitations set forth by claim 1:
A package structure, comprising: a bonding substrate1; an integrated circuit comprising an active region facing the bonding substrate2; and a heat sink metal located between the bonding substrate and the active region of the integrated circuit3, wherein the heat sink metal is electrically insulated with the integrated circuit4.
In FIG. 4, Auburger describes a package structure comprising a bonding substrate1 (17), “active semiconductor structures” (integrated circuit with active region) facing the bonding substrate2 (6), a heat sink metal between the substrate and the active region3 (5), and “thermally conductive metal layer 11, which is electrically isolated from the active semiconductor structures 6” which electrically insulates the active region from the heat sink4 (paragraph 4). Also note that the active region is piled on top of the bonding substrate in a vertical direction5.
Further, Auburger anticipates the following limitations set forth by claim 10:
The package structure of claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit and the bonding substrate are piled along a vertical direction5.
As outlined in the description of claim 1.
Finally, Auburger anticipates the following limitations set forth by claim 11:
A package structure, comprising: a bonding substrate1; an integrated circuit comprising an active region facing the bonding substrate2; at least one heat sink metal located between the bonding substrate and the active region of the integrated circuit3; and an insulating layer located between the heat sink metal and the integrated circuit4, wherein the insulating layer wraps the heat sink metal and separate the heat sink metal from the active region5.
In FIG. 4, Auburger describes a package structure comprising a bonding substrate1 (17), “active semiconductor structures” (integrated circuit with active region) facing the bonding substrate2 (6), a heat sink metal between the substrate and the active region3 (5), and “thermally conductive metal layer 11, which is electrically isolated from the active semiconductor structures 6” which electrically insulates the active region from the heat sink4 (paragraph 4), wherein the thermally conductive metal layer 11 wraps the heat sink metal and physically separates the heat sink metal from the active region5.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in light of Smeys (TW I423414 B).
Regarding claim 2, Auburger teaches the limitations set forth by claim 1 (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102), in addition, Auburger teaches that the bonding substrate comprises a top surface facing the integrated circuit (FIG. 4). However, Auburger does not teach a heat sink metal disposed on the top surface of this bonding substrate.
Smeys teaches, in FIG. 4D, Smeys teaches, in fig 4D, a bonding substrate (101), an integrated circuit (active region) (114c), and a “heat pipe” (470d) between the bonding substrate and the active region which is not electrically coupled to the active region due to the “layers of epoxy” (106c) therebetween. Furthermore, this “heat pipe” extends to come into contact with the top surface of the bonding substrate (470a region).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Smeys as to replace the “heat pipe” structure with top surface contact to a bonding substrate described by Smeys with the metal heat sink described by Auburger (such that the heat sink is now in contact with the upper surface of the bonding substrate) in order to, for example, increase the thermal coupling between the bonding substrate and the heat sink to prevent cracking. The claim would have been obvious because the because placing the heat sink in contact with the bonding substrate is a mere application of a known improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3 Smeys further teaches in, FIG. 4D, that the insulating layer between the active region and the heat sink (106c) is made of “epoxy layers,” (paragraph 23) which is known to be an underfill material to one having ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Auburger with Smeys to both place the heat sink in contact with the top surface of the bonding substrate (as previously described) and to utilize the epoxy underfill material described by Smeys to electrically isolate the heat sink and active region described by Auburger. The claim is obvious because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 13, Auburger teaches the limitations set forth by claim 11, see above. However, Auburger does not teach that the insulating layer is made of underfill or Thermal Interface Material.
Smeys, further teaches the use of underfill in this insulating layer (FIG. 4D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Smeys for the reasons described above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in light of Su (US 20200312734 A1).
Auburger teaches the limitations set forth by claim 1, as described above.
However, Auburger does not teach that the insulating layer between the heat sink and the active region is made of Thermal Interface Material.
Su teaches, in FIG. 1, a packaging structure in which an active surface (21) is thermally coupled to a heat sink (12) via a TIM layer (22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Auburger with Su such that the electrically insulating layer between the heat sink and the active region described by Auburger comprises the Thermal Interface Material, as described by Su, as the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in light of Chiu (DE 102022201741 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Auburger teaches the limitations set forth by claim 1. However, Auburger does not teach a plurality of heat sinks that correspond vertically with active elements in position along a vertical direction.
Chiu teaches, in FIG. 3, a plurality of “thermal vias” (heat sink components), and further teaches that “In certain embodiments, these thermal vias 36 correspond to positions of amplifiers (or other heat-generating active components) of the IC die 12” (paragraph 0026). In addition, the examiner notes that FIG. 4 is a top-down view of the packaging structure described by Chiu, thus the positions of the heat sink components described by Chiu correspond to active elements over a vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu such that the electrically decoupled heat sink, which is itself a part of the overall packaging structure described by Auburger, is substituted for a plurality of heat sink components which correspond to active components over a vertical direction, as taught by Chiu. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a substitution in order to, for example, increase the thermal coupling between the individual components and the environment (as placing the heat sinks directly over the active components decreases the distance between them, and therefore the thermal coupling), as is known to one having ordinary skill in the art. This claim is obvious because it is the simple substitution of two known structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Chiu further teaches, in FIG. 1C, a cylindrical shape on the aforementioned heat sinks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu such that the heat sink, which is a part of the larger packaging structure described by Auburger, is substituted with the cylindrically shaped heat sink taught by Chiu. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution to, for example, increase the surface area of the heat sink and therefore increase its thermal dissipation properties. This claim is obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predicable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Chiu further teaches, in FIG. 3, that these heat sinks are arranged regularly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu such that the heat sink, which is a part of the overall packaging structure taught by Auburger, is substituted with the plurality of heat sinks arranged regularly taught by Chiu. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution in order to, for example, increase the overall surface area of the heat sinks thereby increasing cooling abilities. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to arrange this plurality of heat sinks regularly in order to, for example, ensure uniform heat distribution about the heat sinks and decrease mechanical stress related to non-uniform temperature distribution about the packaging structure. This claim is obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods, to obtain predicable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Chiu further teaches further teaches that “in other embodiments, the thermal vias 36 differ from one another in size, shape, and/or configuration, etc.” (paragraph 0027). The examiner notes that the language “thermal vias 36 differ from one another in . . . configuration” is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art to mean an irregular arrangement of these heat sinks. In addition, Chiu states “Configurations of the thermal regions 62 may depend on the thermal requirements, manufacturing costs, etc. of the electronic device.” One having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a plurality of heat sink metals arranged irregularly has a lower manufacturing cost than a plurality of heat sink metals arranged regularly because of, for example, the reduced tolerances required for irregular distribution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu such that the electrically decoupled heat sink, which is itself a part of the larger packaging structure taught by Auburger, is substituted with the plurality of irregularly distributed heat sink metals taught by Chiu. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution in order to, for example, to increase the surface area of the heat sinks in order to improve thermal coupling. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to arrange these heat sinks irregularly in order to, for example, decrease manufacturing costs. This claim is obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods, to obtain predicable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, Auburger discloses the limitations set forth by claim 11, as described by the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102.
However, Auburger does not teach that the heat sink metal is disposed on the top surface of the bonding substrate.
I would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu such that the metal heat sink, which is part of the overall packaging structure described by Auburger, is disposed on the top surface of the bonding substrate, as taught by Chiu. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution in order to, for example, increase the thermal coupling between the bonding substrate and the heat sink to prevent cracking. The claim would have been obvious because the because placing the heat sink in contact with the bonding substrate is a mere application of a known improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Chiu teaches, in FIG. 3, a heat sink metal disposed on the top surface of a bonding substrate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu such that the heat sink, which is part of the overall packaging structure described by Auburger, is disposed on the top surface of the bonding substrate, as taught by Chiu.
Regarding claim 14, Auburger discloses the limitations set forth by claim 11, as described by the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102. However, Auburger does not disclose a plurality of heat sink metals and the heat sink metals corresponding to the active elements in position along a vertical direction.
Chiu further teaches a plurality of metal heat sinks which correspond vertically in position along a vertical direction to a plurality of active elements, as described by the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu for the reasons described in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 15, Chiu further teaches a metal heat sink having a cylindrical shape, as described by the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu for the reasons described in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 16, Auburger teaches In FIG. 4, a package structure comprising a bonding substrate with a top surface facing an active region (17), the “active semiconductor structures” (integrated circuit with active region) facing the bonding substrate (6), a heat sink metal between the substrate and the active region (5), and “thermally conductive metal layer 11, which is electrically isolated from the active semiconductor structures 6” which electrically insulates the active region from the heat sink (paragraph 4). Also note that the active region is piled on top of the bonding substrate in a vertical direction.
However, Auburger does not teach a plurality of heat sink metals disposed on the top surface of the bonding substrate.
Chiu teaches a plurality of heat sink metals disposed on the top surface of a bonding substrate, as described in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu for the reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 5 under 35. U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 18, Chiu further teaches a plurality of active elements, and that the plurality of heat sinks correspond in position along a vertical direction to the plurality of active elements as described in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C 103.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu for the reasons described under the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 19, Auburger further teaches that the integrated circuit and bonding substrate are piled along a vertical direction, as previously described.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu for the reasons previously outlined in the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 20, Chiu further teaches, in FIG 3, that the plurality of heat sink metals are arranged in a grid shape.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Chiu such that the metal heat sink described by Auburger, which is a part of the larger packaging structure described by Auburger, is substituted with the plurality of heat sink metals described by Chiu. One having ordinary skill they are would have been motivated to do this in order to, for example, ensure uniform thermal distribution about the bonding substrate, thereby decreasing the mechanical stress associated with a nonuniform temperature distribution about the substrate. This claim is obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods, to obtain predicable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in light of Subrahmanyam (US 20220117112 A1).
Auburger teaches the limitations set forth by claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102.
However, Auburger fails to teach that the metal heat sink of a fin shape.
Subrahmanyam teaches a heat sink structure in FIG 1A made up of fins.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger in light of Subrahmanyam such that the overall semiconductor structure comprising the heat sink between the bonding substrate and an active region taught by Auburger is of a strip shape, as described by Subramanyam. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution to, for example, increase the surface area of the heat sink and therefore increase its thermal dissipation properties. This claim is obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another according to known methods, to obtain predicable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in light of Smeys (TW I423414 B) and Chiu (DE 102022201741 A1).
Auburger teaches a bonding substrate, an integrated circuit comprising an active region facing he bonding substrate with a top surface facing the integrated circuit, and a heat sink metal which is electrically insulated from the active region via an insulation layer and in between the bonding substrate and the active region.
However, Auburger does not teach a plurality of heat sink metals disposed on the top surface of the bonding substrate or that the insulation layer is made of Thermal interface material.
Smeys teaches a heat sink metal between a bonding substrate and an active region which is in contact with the top surface of the bonding substrate and an insulating layer made of underfill, as described in the rejection of claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
However, Smeys fails to teach a plurality of heat sink metals.
Chiu teaches a plurality of heat sink metals that are disposed on the top surface of a bonding substrate and are electrically insulated from an active region, as described in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Auburger with Smeys and Chiu such that the insulation layer between the heat sink metal and active region, which is part of the larger semiconductor structure described by Auburger, is made of underfill, as taught by Smeys, and that the heat sink metal be substituted with a plurality of heat sink metals disposed on the top surface of the bonding substrate, as described by Chiu. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the heat sink metal with a plurality thereof to increase surface area and therefore thermal performance, to dispose the heat sinks on the top surface of the bonding substrate to increase thermal coupling therebetween, and to make the insulation layer between the heat sink and active region out of underfill in order to increase thermal coupling therebetween, for example. This claim is obvious because it is a substitution of known elements for others according to known methods, to obtain predicable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
References Included, not Cited
Hisada et al, Effect of Thermal Properties of Interposer Material on Thermal Performance of 2.5D Package, 2014, ICEP, 2014 Proceedings (Year: 2014) – Description of thermal performance of underfill and Thermal Interface Material.
US 20160225689 A1 (Perkins) – Active region flip-chip mounted over heat sink.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/G.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897