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
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)(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, 5, and 9-11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by CHANG et al. (US 2024/0297087, hereinafter, Chang.)
In regard to claims 1 and 17, in figs. 1A-1C, Chang discloses an electronic device, or package, 120 (para [0032]), comprising:
a substrate 10 comprising:
a substrate 10 (para [0032]) first side comprising a peripheral portion and a central portion surrounded by the peripheral portion;
a substrate second side opposite to the substrate first side;
a substrate lateral side;
a dielectric structure, polyimide, resins, BCB, 12 (para [0034]); and
a conductive structure (formed in the substrate providing electrical connections, or redistribution element, 12a, for example);
a first electronic component, or die, 141 (para [0033]), comprising:
a component first side coupled to the conductive structure at the substrate first side of the substrate in the central portion;
a component second side opposite to the component first side; and
a component lateral side connecting the component first side to the component second side;
a stiffener 150 (para [0046]) coupled to the substrate first side in the peripheral portion and comprising:
an inner wall; an outer wall opposite to the inner wall; and a top side; and
an encapsulant, or molding material, 127 (para [0051]) covering the inner wall, the outer wall, and the component lateral side, and a portion of the substrate first side, wherein the component second side is exposed from a top side of the encapsulant.
Regarding claim 5, Chang further discloses wherein: the encapsulant covers the top side of the stiffener. See fig. 2F. (Note that this appears to be from one embodiment since claim 7 recites another embodiment where the encapsulant and the die are co-planar. Nevertheless, Chang also teaches several similar embodiments, see below.)
Regarding claim 9, Chang further comprising:
a second electronic component, or die, 142 (para [0050]) coupled to the conductive structure in the central portion, wherein:
the second electronic component is interposed between the first electronic component and the stiffener; the first electronic component comprises a first footprint; the second electronic component comprises a second footprint; and the first footprint is larger than the second footprint. See figs. 1Aand 1B.
Regarding claims 10-11, wherein:
the encapsulant comprises an encapsulant lateral side; and
the encapsulant lateral side overlaps the substrate lateral side. See fig. 1a.
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) 2-4, 6, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2025/0070084, hereinafter, Lee.)
In regard to claims 2 and 18, Chang discloses all of the claimed limitations as mentioned above, except, further comprising: a lid coupled to the top side of the encapsulant.
Lee, in figs. 5 and 9, discloses several embodiments of an analogous package 100 (para [0043]) including a die 140and stiffener (para [0039]) formed on a substrate 110 (para [0044]). Lee also further teaches a lid 130 (para [0044]] formed on the top surface of the package. The Lid further functions as a heat sink device and support. This is common in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention effective filing date to attach a heatsink device to the whole package in order to take the common advantage.
Regarding to claim 3, wherein: the lid comprises an opening; and
the component second side is exposed from the opening. See Lee’s fig. 9.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further comprising:
a thermal interface material (TIM) 170 (para [0076]), wherein: the lid is attached to the top side of the encapsulant with the TIM.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, the combination shows the thickness of the encapsulant, but does not recite the exact value. Nonetheless, the value or thickness of the element may be easily adjusted during the step forming the device. Thus, it is a non-critical limitation.
Claim(s) 7-8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2017/0179043, hereinafter, Xu.)
In regard to claims 7 and 17, Chang discloses all of the claimed limitations as mentioned above, except, wherein: the top side of the stiffener is exposed from the top side of the encapsulant; and the top side of the stiffener, the top side of the encapsulant, and the component second side of the first electronic component are substantially coplanar.
Xu, in figs. 3 and 9, discloses an analogous device and further includes die 901 and stiffeners 901 on a substrate 930 (para [0027], fig. 9.) Xu further shows that the elements are coplanar. This is common in the art to facilitate the process of forming the device and the process of forming the protection or molding in a later step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application’s effective filing date to form the elements as taught in order to take the advantage as mentioned.
Regarding claim 8, Xu further teaches wherein: the top side of the stiffener comprises a grinded surface (para [0004].)
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Lee.
In regard to claim 12, Chang discloses all of the claimed limitations as mentioned above (see the discussion of claim 1 above), except, further comprising: a lid coupled to the top side of the encapsulant.
Lee, in figs. 5 and 9, discloses several embodiments of an analogous package 100 (para [0043]) including a die 140and stiffener (para [0039]) formed on a substrate 110 (para [0044]). Lee also further teaches a lid 130 (para [0044]] formed on the top surface of the package. The Lid further functions as a heat sink device and support. This is common in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention effective filing date to attach a heatsink device to the whole package in order to take the common advantage.
Regarding claims 13-16, see the discussion of claims 3-6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN W HA whose telephone number is (571)272-1707. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8:00AM-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, WAEL FAHMY can be reached at (571)-272-1705. 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.
/NATHAN W HA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights