DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leobandung (U.S. Pat. 10128199).
Regarding claims 1-2, Leobandung [Figs.4-6] discloses a package comprising:
a substrate [30];
a first integrated device [100] coupled to the substrate;
a second integrated device [102] coupled to the substrate; and
a plurality of wire bonds [34] coupled to the first integrated device and the second integrated device;
wherein the plurality of wire bonds [34] are coupled to a first back side [S2] of the first integrated device and a second back side [S2] of the second integrated device [Fig.5].
Regarding claims 6-9, Leobandung [Figs.4-6] discloses the package
wherein a first electrical path between the first integrated device [100] and the second integrated device [102] includes a wire bond [34] from the plurality of wire bonds;
wherein a second electrical path between the first integrated device and the second integrated device includes at least one interconnect [18,28,32] from the substrate;
further comprising a heat sink [40,42] coupled to a back side of the first integrated device [100];
wherein the heat sink is coupled to the back side of the first integrated device through an adhesive [36].
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (U.S. Pub. 2024/0421123).
Regarding claims 1-2, Wu [Figs.9-10] discloses a package comprising:
a substrate [210];
a first integrated device [130] coupled to the substrate;
a second integrated device [130A] coupled to the substrate; and
a plurality of wire bonds [160] coupled to the first integrated device and the second integrated device;
wherein the plurality of wire bonds [160] are coupled to a first back side of the first integrated device and a second back side of the second integrated device [Para.69] [Fig.9].
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fjelstad (U.S. Pub. 2010/0258952).
Regarding claims 14-16, Fjelstad [Figs.1-2] discloses a package comprising:
a substrate [28];
a first integrated device [14] coupled to the substrate;
a second integrated device [12] coupled to the substrate; and
a flexible cable [30] [Para.12] coupled to the first integrated device and the second integrated device;
wherein the flexible cable is coupled to a first back side [20] of the first integrated device and a second back side [22] of the second integrated device [Fig.1];
wherein the flexible cable is coupled to the first integrated device through a first plurality of solder interconnects [52], and
wherein the flexible cable is coupled to the second integrated device through a second plurality of solder interconnects [Para.12].
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (U.S. Pat. 10128199) in view of Liu (U.S. Pat. 9129962).
Regarding claim 3, Leobandung [Fig.5] discloses wire bonds [34] may be formed by ball bonding or wedge bonding [Col.6 lines 33-45]. Leobandung fails to explicitly disclose specific wire bond alignment as claimed. However, Liu [Figs.1-3] discloses and makes obvious different alignments of wire bonds coupled to the first and second integrated devices,
wherein the plurality of wire bonds comprise a first plurality of wire bonds and a second plurality of wire bonds [218,220],
wherein the first plurality of wire bonds comprise a first plurality of ball bonds and a first plurality of wedge bonds [210,216],
wherein the first plurality of ball bonds are coupled to the first integrated device, wherein the first plurality of wedge bonds are coupled to the second integrated device,
wherein the second plurality of wire bonds comprise a second plurality of ball bonds and a second plurality of wedge bonds [212,214],
wherein the second plurality of ball bonds are coupled to the second integrated device, and wherein the second plurality of wedge bonds are coupled to the first integrated device.
Leobandung discloses wire bonds may be formed by ball bonding or wedge bonding [Col.6 lines 33-45]. Liu discloses alternating and aligning the wire bonds with first bonds and second bonds, wherein the second bonds being wedge bonds, with consideration for clearance and to avoid cross-over issues [Col.4 lines 1-42 and texts related to Figs.1-3]. It would have been obvious to combine Leobandung and Liu to provide the wire bonds as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 4-5, Leobandung and Liu [Discussed above] disclose
wherein the first plurality of wire bonds and the second plurality of wire bonds [218,220] are arranged such that wire bonds alternate between a wire bond from the first plurality of wire bonds and a wire bond from the second plurality of wire bonds [Liu; Figs.1-3];
wherein the first integrated device comprises a first row of first pad interconnects and a second row of first pad interconnects,
wherein the second integrated comprises a first row of second pad interconnects and a second row of second pad interconnects,
wherein the first plurality of ball bonds are coupled to the first row of first pad interconnects of the first integrated device,
wherein the first plurality of wedge bonds are coupled to the second row of second pad interconnects of the second integrated device,
wherein the second plurality of ball bonds are coupled to the first row of second pad interconnects of the second integrated device, and
wherein the second plurality of wedge bonds are coupled to the second row of first pad interconnects of the first integrated device [Liu; Figs.1-3].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (U.S. Pat. 10128199) in view of Karnezos (U.S. Pub. 2004/0061212).
Regarding claim 10, Leobandung discloses the heat sink [40] comprises any metal or metal alloy, including aluminum [Col.7 lines 6-18], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heat sink comprise copper (Cu) and/or silicon (Si). However, Karnezos [Fig.5D] discloses wherein the heat sink [504] comprise copper (Cu) [Para.100] and/or silicon (Si). It would have been obvious to provide wherein the heat sink comprise copper (Cu), since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (U.S. Pat. 10128199) in view of Sun (U.S. Pub. 2022/0320026).
Regarding claim 11, Leobandung fails to explicitly disclose the claimed pillar interconnects. However, Sun [Fig.2] discloses and makes obvious a package
wherein the first integrated device [204] is coupled to the substrate [202] through a first plurality of pillar interconnects [240] and a first plurality of solder interconnects [242], and
wherein the second integrated device [206] is coupled to the substrate through a second plurality of pillar interconnects [260] and a second plurality of solder interconnects [262].
It would have been obvious to provide the pillar interconnect as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, Leobandung and Sun disclose a package
wherein a first electrical path between the first integrated device and the second integrated device includes a wire bond from the plurality of wire bonds, and
wherein a second electrical path between the first integrated device and the second integrated device includes (i) a pillar interconnect from the first plurality of pillar interconnects, (ii) a solder interconnect from the first plurality of solder interconnects, (iii) at least one interconnect from the substrate, (iv) a solder interconnect from the second plurality of solder interconnects, and/or (v) a pillar interconnect from the second plurality of pillar interconnects [Discussed above in claims 6-7 and 11].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (U.S. Pat. 10128199) in view of Chen (U.S. Pub. 2017/0047262).
Regarding claim 13, Leobandung fails to explicitly disclose the integrated devices comprising different thicknesses. However, Chen [Fig.3C] discloses a package comprising integrated devices of varying sizes and thicknesses, wherein the first integrated device includes a first thickness and the second integrated device includes a second thickness that is different from the first thickness. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the integrated devices comprising different thicknesses, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fjelstad (U.S. Pub. 2010/0258952) in view of Blair (U.S. Pat. 6797891).
Regarding claims 17-19, Fjestad [Fig.1] discloses the flexible cable [30] wherein an electrical path between the first integrated device and the second integrated device includes (i) a solder interconnect [52] from the first plurality of solder interconnects, (ii) a cable interconnect [30] from the plurality of cable interconnects, and/or (iii) a solder interconnect [52] from the second plurality of solder interconnects. Fjestad fails to explicitly disclose the specific structure of the flexible cable. However, Blair [Figs.1-9] discloses a package
wherein the flexible cable comprises:
a plurality of cable interconnects [120,124; and
at least one cable dielectric layer [122] [At least in Fig.5];
wherein the plurality of cable interconnects are coupled to a first plurality of pad interconnects of the first integrated device, through a first plurality of solder interconnects, and
wherein the plurality of cable interconnects are further coupled to a second plurality of pad interconnects of the second integrated device, through a second plurality of solder interconnects [Fjelstad and Blair].
It would have been obvious to provide the flexible cable structure as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fjelstad (U.S. Pub. 2010/0258952) in view of Leobandung (U.S. Pat. 10128199).
Regarding claim 20, Fjestad fails to explicitly disclose the package further comprising a heat sink coupled to a back side of the first integrated device. However, Leobandung [Fig.6] discloses a package further comprising a heat sink [40] coupled to a back side of the first integrated device. It would have been obvious to provide the heat sink, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights