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 .
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 4 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. Claim 1 introduces “an insulating layer located between the at least one heat sink metal and the integrated circuit” and claim 4 introduces “an insulating layer located between the at least one heat sink metal and the integrated circuit, wherein the insulating layer is a thermal interface material.” IT is unclear if this language is meant to introduce a second insulating layer or to further limit the insulating material to be a thermal interface material. As set forth in In re Miyazaki, “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008). For the purposes of this action, the claim language will be interpreted to mean a further limitation of the insulating layer of claim 1 to be a thermal interface material.
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) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auburger (US 6867492 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Auburger discloses, in FIG. 4, a semiconductor substrate 17 (bonding substrate) and “semiconductor chip” 2 (integrated circuit) with “active semiconductor structures” (active region) 6 which is disposed facing the bonding substrate, a “heat-dissipating metal layer” (heat sink metal) 11 “which is electrically isolated from the upper face 3 [of the integrated circuit]” (paragraph 5) and an “electrically isolating layer” (insulating layer) 5 which is located between the active region of the integrated circuit 2 and the heat sink metal, and the heat sink metal fills the space between the active region of the integrated circuit 6, the heat sink metal 5 and the bonding substrate 17. The examiner notes that while the insulating layer does not fill the entire region between the active region and the substrate, it still fills the region.
Regarding claim 2, Auburger further discloses, in FIG. 4, that the heat sink metal is disposed on (although not on and directly in contact with) the top surface of the bonding substrate.
Regarding claim 10, Auburger further discloses, in FIG. 4, that the integrated circuit and the bonding substrate are piled along a vertical direction.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in view of Smeys (TW I423414 B).
Regarding claim 3, Auburger teaches the limitations of claim 1, however, Auburger does not teach that the insulating layer is an under fill.
Smeys teaches, in FIG. 4D, a “heat pipe” (heat sink metal) 470d between a bonding substrate 101 and an integrated circuit 114 between which there are “layers of epoxy” 106c (one having ordinary skill in the art appreciates epoxy to be an underfill material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Auburger such that the insulating material is an underfill, as taught by Smeys. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, ensure that the space between the heat sink metal and the active region is completely filled (a task for which underfill epoxies are well suited).
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).
Regarding claim 4, Auburger teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Auburger does not teach that the insulating layer comprises a 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 modify the device taught by Auburger such that the insulating material is a thermal interface material, as taught by Su. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because thermal interface materials are definitionally adapted to increase the thermal conduction between an active region and a heat sink. Using known materials for their known purpose amounts to prima facie obviousness. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8-9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in view of Chiu (DE 102022201741 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Auburger teaches the limitations of claim 1. Auburger does not teach that the 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 heat sink metal 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.
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 further modify the packaging structure taught by Auburger such that the heat sink metals are cylindrical, as taught by Chiu. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, increase the surface areas of the heat sinks, increasing their thermal dissipation properties.
Regarding claim 8, Chiu further teaches, in FIG. 3, a plurality of heat sink metals (see above) which are arranged regularly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging structure taught by Auburger such that there are a plurality of heat sink metals arranged regularly.
One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, increase the surface area of the heat sinks and to arrange them regularly as to ensure maximal airflow between the heat sinks.
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."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the packaging structure taught by Auburger such that the heat sink metals are arranged irregularly, as taught by Chiu. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, decrease the manufacturing cost of the heat sink metals, as irregular arrangements have higher manufacturing tolerances. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US
6867492 B2) in view of Subrahmanyam (US 20220117112 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as explained above, Auburger teaches the limitations set forth by claim 1. Auburger does not teach a heat sink metal in a strip shape.
Subrahmanyam teaches a heat sink structure in FIG 1A made up of “fins” (strip shaped metals).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging structure taught by Auburger such that the heat sink metal is in a strip shape, as taught by Subrahmanyam. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, increase the surface area of the heat sink metal, increasing thermal dissipation. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim(s) 11-13, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in view of Gurrum (US 7838988 B1).
Auburger teaches in FIG. 4, a bonding substrate 17 (see above) an integrated circuit 2 (see above) and a heat sink metal 11 (see above) located between the bonding substrate and an active region of the integrated circuit 6 (see above) and an insulating layer 5 (see above) which is located between the heat sink metal and the integrated circuit and insulates the heat sink metal from the active region of the integrated circuit (“With the aid of this heat-dissipating metal layer 11, which is electrically isolated from the upper face 3, directly on the active semiconductor structures and separated from them only by the thin electrically isolating layer 5, Description of Preferred Embodiments paragraph 5).
Auburger does not teach that the insulating layer wraps the heat sink metal.
Gurrum teaches, in FIG. 1, a substrate (bonding substrate) 150, an integrated circuit 110, and “thermal management stud bumps” 160 and thermal management stud bumps 160 in which “. . . thermal management stud bumps can be formed of copper, gold, aluminum, and alloys thereof” (paragraph 29 of Description of Preferred Embodiments), meaning the thermal management stud bumps are heat sink metals. “For example, underfill material can fill an area surrounding interconnects 140 and thermal management stud bumps 160. With the additional structures present on the die surface, there can be additional surface area to which a mold compound can adhere, thereby further limiting delamination of the mold compound from the package” (paragraph 28). The examiner notes that the “underfill material” mentioned above corresponds to an insulating layer, and this insulating layer “surrounds the thermal management stud bumps,” thereby wrapping them.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Auburger such that the insulating layer wraps the heat sink metals, as taught by Gurrum. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to for the reasons stated by Gurrum above.
Regarding claim 12, Auburger further teaches, in FIG. 4, a top surface to the bonding substrate 17 which is facing the integrated circuit 2, and wherein the heat sink metal is on (but not directly contacting) the top surface of the bonding substrate.
Regarding claim 13, as shown above, Auburger teaches an underfill layer as an insulating layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the package structure taught by Auburger such that the insulating material is an underfill, as taught by Gurrum. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because underfill is particularly suited to “wrap” the heat sink metal. This amounts to the use of known materials for a known purpose. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, as explained above, Auburger teaches a package structure with a bonding substrate, an integrated circuit comprising and active region facing the bonding substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a top surface facing the integrated circuit, a heat sink metal located between the bonding substrate and the active region, wherein the heat sink metal is disposed on (but not directly contacting) a top surface of the bonding substrate, wherein the heat sink metal is electrically isolated with the integrated circuit, and an insulating layer located between the heat sink metal and the insulating circuit, wherein the insulating layer fills the space between the active region and the bonding substrate. The examiner notes that this insulating layer fills a region between the active region and a substrate, but it does not fill the entire region.
Auburger does not teach a plurality of heat sink metals.
Gurrum further teaches, in FIG. 1, a plurality of heat sink metals (see FIG. 1) and an underfill (insulating layer) which is located between the heat sink metals and the integrated circuit, wherein the insulating layer fills the space between the active region and the heat sink metals and the bonding substrate and fills the space between the plurality of heat sink metals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the package structure taught by Auburger such that there are a plurality of heat sink metals and such that the insulating layer fills the space between the heat sink metals, as taught by Gurrum. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so for the reasons taught by Gurrum above.
Regarding claim 17, as explained above, Gurrum teaches an underfill layer as the insulating layer explained above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the package structure taught by Auburger such that the insulating material is an underfill, as taught by Gurrum. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because underfill is particularly suited to “wrap” the heat sink metal. This amounts to the use of known materials for a known purpose. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Auburger further teaches, in FIG. 4, that the integrated circuit and the bonding substrate are piled along a vertical direction.
Claim(s) 14-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auburger (US 6867492 B2) in view of Gurrum (US 7838988 B1) in further view of Chiu (DE 102022201741 A1).
Regarding claim 14, as explained above, Auburger and Gurrum teach the limitations of claim 11, further, Gurrum teaches that there are a plurality of heat sink metals (see FIG. 1). They do not teach that the heat sink metals correspond to active elements in a position along a vertical direction.
As explained above, Chiu teaches a plurality of heat sink metals that correspond to active elements along a vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the package structure taught by Auburger and Gurrum such that the number of heat sink metals is plural and such that the heat sink metals correspond to active structures along a vertical direction. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, ensure that the heat sink metals are close to the active elements, increasing their thermal coupling and therefore their thermal dissipation.
Regarding claim 15, as shown above, Chiu further teaches that the heat sink metals are cylindrical in shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the package structure taught by Auburger and Gurrum such that the heat sink metals are cylindrical in shape. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, increase the surface area of the heat sink metals.
Regarding claim 18, as explained above, Smeys teaches a plurality of heart sink metal elements which correspond vertically to active elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Auburger and Gurrum with Chiu such that the heat sink metal 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.
Regarding claim 20, as explained above, Auburger and Gurrum teach the limitations of claim 16. They do not teach that the heat sink metals are arranged in a grid shape.
As shown above, Chiu teaches, in FIG. 3, a plurality of heat sink metals (see above) that are arranged in a grid shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging structure taught by Auburger and Gurrum such that the heat sink metals are arranged in a grid shape. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, to ensure maximal airflow between the heat sinks, increasing thermal dissipation.
Response to Arguments
Amendments to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claims 5 and 8-9 are acknowledged and accepted. A new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made for dependent claim 4 after the amendment of claim 1 (see above).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 (see pages 9 and 14, filed 4/14/2026) regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the new grounds of rejection acknowledges that Auburger discloses that the insulating layer 5 fills the space between the heat sink metal and the bonding substrate, although it does not entirely fill all of the space, a partial occupation of space fits within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “fill” in this context. As a courtesy, the examiner notes that FIG. 1 of Gurrum, along with paragraph 28 of Gurrum should be considered regarding this matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14 and 15, filed 4/14/2026, with respect to claims 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gurrum (see above).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 4/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gurrum (see above).
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
Prosecution Insights