DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed 2/13/2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 and 15 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the present claims are not directed to mutually exclusive species, exemplifying that the additional limitations of claim 17 may be incorporated into claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the comparison between claim 1 and claim 17 is not a comparison between claims drawn to different species, but rather a comparison between a generic claim and a species claim. The reason that it may be possible to incorporate claim 17 limitations (presumably, the details of the reinforcing structure) into claim 1 is because claim 1 is a generic claim. However, this does not equate to a scenario in which limitations from different species could be incorporated into claim 1 in a same claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. However, the Examiner reminds Applicant that it may be possible to rejoin the withdrawn claims in the case that they recite a same subject matter that has been found to be allowable during examination of the elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-13 and 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an overhanging portion of the first semiconductor chip in which the first semiconductor chip does not overlap the second semiconductor chip in a vertical direction”. It is not clear what is meant by the term “overlap … in a vertical direction”. For example, “overlap in a vertical direction” may refer to two objects that each have at least a portion in a same horizontal plane, as the vertical direction is the direction that determines overlap. An example of this scenario is provided below, with the z-direction being the vertical direction:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, “overlap in a vertical direction” may refer to the perspective from which overlap may be observed. In this case, two objects that each have at least a portion in a same vertical plane may be interpreted to overlap in a vertical direction. An example of this scenario is provided below, with the z-direction being the vertical direction:
PNG
media_image2.png
400
889
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is not clear to which of these scenarios, or perhaps another different scenario, “overlap in a vertical direction” refers. For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to refer to the second scenario, as this appears to be consistent with what is disclosed.
Furthermore, claim 8 recites the limitation “the first side surface [of the reinforcing chip] is disposed to be closer to the encapsulant than the second side surface”. This is unclear in light of the disclosure. Specifically, it is not clear how either of the side surfaces could be considered to be closer than the other to an encapsulant that is in contact with both side surfaces. See e.g. FIG. 1, where the encapsulant 150 is in contact with side surface 141_S1 and 141_S2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Presuming that “overlap in a vertical direction” refers to the second scenario discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Generally, the invention as claimed is directed towards a semiconductor package comprising stacked chips in a cascade structure. More specifically, the semiconductor package includes a reinforcing structure that includes a reinforcing chip that is disposed on an upper structure of the stacked chips. Such subject matter is disclosed in prior art references, including Lee (US 11,955,435), Liu et al. (US 12,033,958), Kim et al. (US 2021/0407965), Zhou et al. (US 2020/0135656) and Kim (US 10,964,669). However, invention as claimed in claim 1 also requires the reinforcing structure to include an interfacial layer covering the upper surface of the reinforcing chip, wherein the interfacial layer includes a material that is the same as that of an encapsulant that covers the package substrate and the stack structure and covers an upper surface of the reinforcing structure. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not teach such a feature in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Thus, such subject matter is found to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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 Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights