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 .
Applicant's amendment/arguments filed on 4/2/26 as being acknowledged and entered. By this amendment claims 17 and 20 are canceled, claims 21-22 have been added and claims 1-16, 18-19 and 21-22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiner et al. (US Patent 9,653,428).
Claim 1: Hiner teaches (Fig. 10A-2 – 10K) a method of forming a package structure, comprising: providing a first die and a second die (Die 1/ Dies 2); forming a dielectric layer (1024) on the first die and the second die (Fig. 10A-2); electrically connecting a bridge (1016) to the first die and the second die through connectors (Fig. 10F-1); after electrically connecting the bridge to the first die and the second die, forming an underfill layer (1073) between the first die and the bridge as well as between the second die and the bridge to encapsulates the connectors; forming an encapsulant (1091) (Fig. 10K) on the dielectric layer and laterally encapsulating the bridge; and forming a redistribution layer (RDL) structure (1088) (Col. 45 lines 19-37) over the encapsulant and the bridge.
Claim 2: Hiner teaches (Fig. 10A-2 – 10K) a top surface of the bridge is in contact (electrically) with the RDL structure.
Claim 3: Hiner teaches (Fig. 10K) the encapsulant is sandwiched between the dielectric layer and the RDL structure.
Claim 4: Hiner teaches (Fig. 10K) wherein the encapsulant and the bridge are sandwiched between the dielectric layer and the RDL structure.
Claim 11: Hiner teaches (Fig. 4D-4F) a method of forming a package structure, comprising: providing a first die and a second die (Die 1/ Die 2); forming a bridge (416a), electrically connected to the first die and the second die and having a bottom surface facing the first die and the second die; forming an encapsulant (431b) encapsulating sidewalls of the bridge, wherein a top surface of the encapsulant is level with a top surface of the bridge; and forming a dielectric layer (423), disposed between the encapsulant and at least one of the first die and the second die, wherein the dielectric layer and a portion of the encapsulant are in contact with the first die and the second die.
Claim 12: Hiner teaches (Fig. 4F) the top surface of the encapsulant is level with a substrate of the bridge.
Claims 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiner et al. (US PGPub 2018/0005987).
Claim 18: Hiner teaches (Fig. 2L-2N) a package structure, comprising: a first die and a second die (Die 1/ Die 2); a dielectric layer (226a), disposed on the first die and the second die, wherein the dielectric layer has a plurality of opening exposing portions of the first die and the second die; a bridge (216b), electrically connected to the first die and the second die, wherein the dielectric layer is spaced apart from the bridge; an encapsulant (291), disposed on the dielectric layer and laterally encapsulating the bridge wherein the dielectric layer and a portion of the encapsulant are in contact with the first die and the second die; and a redistribution layer structure (288), disposed over the encapsulant and the bridge, wherein the encapsulant and the bridge are sandwiched between the dielectric layer and the RDL structure.
Claim 19: Hiner teaches (Fig. 2L-2N) an underfill layer (226) sandwiched between dielectric layer and the bridge.
Claim 21: Hiner teaches (Fig. 2L-2N) the bridge is electrically connected to eh first die and the second die through connectors, and the underfill laterally encapsulates the connectors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 13-16, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach the physical relationship between the underfill, encapsulant and dielectric layer described in these claims. The prior art of record does not teach the claimed combination of the dielectric layer, underfill, and encapsulant and they relationship to the die and bridge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at 5712721705. 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.
/SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights