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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on April 10th, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention, claims 18-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-17 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 21st, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/21/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)/sixth paragraph
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a case configured to accommodate the first module, the second module, and the capacitor module…” as recited in claim 1. And “a support frame configured to adjust and maintain a gap between the first module and the second module…” as recited in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 2022/0344243, hereinafter as Hur ‘243) in view of Muto (US 2021/0015006, hereinafter as Muto ‘006).
Regarding Claim 1, Hur ‘243 teaches a storage device comprising:
a first module comprising a first substrate (Fig. 4, (131); [0027]) and at least one first semiconductor chip (141; [027]) on the first substrate (131);
a second module electrically connected to the first module (see para. [0043]-[0045]), the second module comprising a second substrate (133; [0027]) and at least one second semiconductor chip (143; [0027]) on the second substrate and;
a heat dissipation structure (120; [0031]) between the first module and the second module (see Fig. 4), the heat dissipation structure connected to at least one of the first and second modules; and
a case (110; [0028]) configured to accommodate the first module, the second module, and the heat dissipation structure.
Thus, Hur ‘243 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a capacitor module between the first module and the second module, the capacitor module comprising at least one capacitor, and the capacitor module electrically connected to at least one of the first and second modules”.
Muto ‘006 teaches a capacitor module between the first module (Fig. 6, (27); [0042]) and the second module (31A; [0045]), the capacitor module comprising at least one capacitor (Fig. 6, (30); [0056]), and the capacitor module electrically connected to at least one of the first and second modules (see para. [0056]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hur ‘243 by having a capacitor module between the first module and the second module, the capacitor module comprising at least one capacitor, and the capacitor module electrically connected to at least one of the first and second modules for the purpose of improving the heat dissipation of the semiconductor storage device (e.g. function as a heat sink) (see para. [0100] and [0110]-[0119]) as suggested by Muto ‘006.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 (Hur ‘243)
Regarding Claim 2, Muto ‘006 teaches a capacitor substrate and at least one capacitor mounted on the capacitor substrate (Fig. 11, (20); [0043]), and an end portion of at least one side of the capacitor substrate (20) is in physical contact with the case (see Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 3, Muto ‘006 teaches the case (11; [0035]) is grounded. It would obviously appear that the housing (2) including base (11) is grounded.
Regarding Claim 4, Muto ‘006 teaches the capacitor (30) in the capacitor module is a radial capacitor (see Fig. 13, para. [0056]).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a radial capacitor on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (see Fig. 3 of Zhang (US 2017/0169948) as evidence. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select is a radial capacitor in order to improve the performance of the storage device.
Regarding Claim 5, Muto ‘006 teaches the capacitor (30) in the capacitor module is a tantalum capacitor (see para. [0056]).
Regarding Claim 6, Muto ‘006 teaches the capacitor is in a region between the capacitor substrate (20) and the first module (27) where the semiconductor chip is not provided (see Fig. 12).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the capacitor that can be arranged in any order, thus the capacitor is in either a first region between the capacitor substrate and the first module where the first semiconductor chip is not provided or a second region between the capacitor substrate and the second module where the second semiconductor chip is not provided involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to perform the arrangement when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 7, Muto ‘006 teaches a heat dissipation member (33; [0074]) at least one of between the capacitor module and the first module or between the capacitor module and the second module (see Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Muto ‘006 teaches a first contact portion (Fig. 2, (4A); [0040]) between the first substrate of the first module and the capacitor module; and a second contact portion (4A) between the second substrate of the second module and the capacitor module, wherein the first substrate of the first module is electrically connected to the second substrate of the second module through the first and second contact portions. Examiner considers the fastening member (4A) first/second contact portion.
Regarding Claim 10, Hur ‘243 and Muto ‘006 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the capacitor substrate comprises a first capacitor substrate and a second capacitor substrate, each including a different material having different thermal conductivity”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have a first capacitor substrate and a second capacitor substrate, each including a different material having different thermal conductivity on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a first capacitor substrate and a second capacitor substrate, each including a different material having different thermal conductivity in order to improve the performance of the storage device.
Regarding Claim 11, Hur ‘243 and Muto ‘006 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the second capacitor substrate comprises a metal substrate”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the metal material for the second substrate on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the metal material for the second substrate in order to improve the performance of the storage device.
Regarding Claim 14, Muto ‘006 teaches a flexible connection substrate (FP1/FP2; [0046]-[0047]) connecting the first substrate of the first module and the second substrate of the second module (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Muto ‘006 teaches a first case (11) opposing one surface of the first module; and a second case (12) opposing one surface of the second module, and a heat dissipation member (33) is between the second module and the second case (see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Hur ‘243 teaches a first external connector (Fig. 12, (161); [0027]) on one side of the first substrate (131) and connected to the first substrate (131), and exposed through an opening in the case (110) (see Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 17, Muto ‘006 teaches a second external connector (Fig. 23, (81); [0154]) on one side of the second substrate (21), connected to the second substrate, and exposed through an opening in the case (see Fig. 23).
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur ‘243 and Muto ‘006 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0132701, hereinafter as Lee ‘701).
Regarding Claim 9, Hur ‘243 and Muto ‘006 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a cover portion on the capacitor substrate, wherein the cover portion protrudes from the capacitor substrate toward the first module and/or the second module when viewed in cross-section, and surrounds at least a portion of the first semiconductor chip and/or the second semiconductor chip when viewed in plan view”.
Lee ‘701 teaches a cover portion (Fig. 2, (140); [0038]) on the substrate (100; [0030]), wherein the cover portion protrudes from the substrate toward the first module and/or the second module when viewed in cross-section, and surrounds at least a portion of the first semiconductor chip and/or the second semiconductor chip (electronic components; [0038]) when viewed in plan view (see Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hur ‘243 and Muto ‘006 by having a cover portion on the substrate, wherein the cover portion protrudes from the substrate toward the first module and/or the second module and surrounds at least a portion of the first semiconductor chip and/or the second semiconductor chip in order to block electrostatic (ESD) radiation noise which penetrates from the outside and may serve as an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield (see para. [0038]).
Regarding Claim 12, Muto ‘006 teaches the capacitor module (30) is along an edge of the capacitor substrate (see Fig. 15),
Lee ‘701 teaches a support frame (sidewall structure 140) configured to adjust and maintain a gap between the first module and the second module (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee ‘701 teaches a support frame (sidewall structure 140).
Hur ‘243 and Muto ‘006 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the support frame along a periphery of one capacitor substrate having higher thermal conductivity, from among the first capacitor substrate and the second capacitor substrate”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the support frame along a periphery of one capacitor substrate having higher thermal conductivity, from among the first capacitor substrate and the second capacitor substrate on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the support frame along a periphery of one capacitor substrate having higher thermal conductivity, from among the first capacitor substrate and the second capacitor substrate in order to improve the performance of the storage device.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Kim et al. (US 2021/0294392 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2020/0075453 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights