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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-15) and Species I (e.g., Fig. 17G) and Species N (including claim 8 and excluding claim 7) in the reply filed on 25 August 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and made final.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 25 August 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 7 and 16-20 are cancelled and claims 21-26 are newly added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following subject matter must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 26 recites “wherein, from a top view, a shape of a profiled region of the bottom surface in which the profile varies corresponds to a shape of the package structure,” which is not illustrated by the drawings (i.e., the elected species of Fig. 17G).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “acrylic-base material,” which should read “acrylic-based material.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 24 and 26 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 24 recites “wherein, from a top view, a profiled region of the bottom surface in which the profile varies overlaps the package structure and the TIM layer and does not overlap the adhesive structure,” which is indefinite because the profiled region of the bottom surface cannot be viewed from a top view. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this will be interpreted to recite “wherein a profiled region of the bottom surface, in which the profile varies, overlaps from a top view the package structure and the TIM layer and does not overlap from the top view the adhesive structure.”
Claim 26 recites “wherein, from a top view, a shape of a profiled region of the bottom surface in which the profile varies corresponds to a shape of the package structure,” which is indefinite because: (1) the profiled region of the bottom surface cannot be viewed from a top view and (2) the intended meaning of “a shape of a profiled region of the bottom surface … corresponds to a shape of the package structure” is indiscernible with respect to the elected species (Fig. 17G). For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this will be interpreted to recite “wherein a profiled region of the bottom surface in which the profile varies overlaps, from a top view, the package structure.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ho et al. (US20150187679A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ho teaches in Fig. 6F a method, comprising:
bonding a package component (12) to a substrate (10) {[0021]};
forming a thermal interface material (TIM) (28) over the package component (12) {[0022]};
forming a first adhesive layer (21) over the substrate (10), the first adhesive layer (21) laterally surrounding the package component (12) {[0040]}; and
attaching a lid (24) to the TIM (28) and the first adhesive layer (21), wherein the lid (24) has a recessed portion (25) overlapping the TIM (28) on the substrate {Figs. 2A-3G; [0022, 0027]}.
Regarding claim 5, Ho teaches the method of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the first adhesive layer (21) has a top in a position higher than a top surface of the package component (12), and the recessed portion (25) of the lid (24) does not overlap the first adhesive layer (21) {Fig. 6F}.
Regarding claim 9, Ho teaches the method of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the first adhesive layer (21) comprises a silicon-based material, an acrylic-base[d] material, an epoxy-based polymer, or combinations thereof {[0040]; silicone}.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung et al. (US20240038617A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hung teaches in Fig. 1/13 a method, comprising:
bonding a package structure (40A) to a substrate (10) {[0020]};
attaching a ring structure (80/160) to the substrate (10), the ring structure (80/160) surrounding the package structure (40A), wherein a ring thickness of an upper portion (80B/160B) of the ring structure (80/160) is greater than a ring thickness of a lower portion (80A/160A) of the ring structure (80/160) {[0026, 0032]/[0055, 0056]};
forming a thermal interface material (TIM) layer (75) over the package structure (40A) {[0026]}; and
attaching a lid structure (90/170) to the TIM layer (75) and the ring structure (80) {[0026]/[0055, 0056]}.
Regarding claim 12, Hung teaches the method of claim 11, and Hung further teaches wherein a lateral distance from the upper portion (80B) of the ring structure (80) to the package structure (40A) is shorter than a lateral distance from the lower portion (80A) of the ring structure (80) to the package structure (40A) {Fig. 1}.
Regarding claim 13, Hung teaches the method of claim 11, and Hung further teaches wherein an outer sidewall of the upper portion (80B) of the ring structure (80) is aligned with an outer sidewall of the lower portion (80A) of the ring structure (80) {Fig. 1}.
Regarding claim 14, Hung teaches the method of claim 11, and Hung further teaches further comprising: bonding a surface mount device (40B/30) to the substrate (10) prior to attaching the lid structure (170), wherein after attaching the lid structure (170), the upper portion (160B) of the ring structure (160) at least partially overlaps the surface mount device (40B/30), and the lower portion (160A) of the ring structure (160) does not overlap the surface mount device (40B/30) {Fig. 13; [0021]}.
Regarding claim 15, Hung teaches the method of claim 11, and Hung further teaches wherein after attaching the lid structure (170), the lid structure (170) has a first portion (170A) over the TIM layer (75) and a second portion (170B) over the ring structure (160), and a thickness of the first portion (170A) of the lid structure (170) is thicker than a thickness of the second portion (170B) of the lid structure (170) {Fig. 13}.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al. (US20220367312A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lai teaches in Fig. 1H method, comprising:
bonding a package structure (22) to a package component (10A) {[0024]};
forming a thermal interface material (TIM) layer (40) over the package structure (22) {[0038]};
providing a lid structure (30) having a bottom surface (34) facing the package structure (22), wherein a profile of the bottom surface (34) varies in a lateral direction across the package structure (22) {[0043]}; and
placing the lid structure (30) over the TIM layer (40) such that the TIM layer (40) is disposed between the package structure (22) and the bottom surface (34) of the lid structure (30) and a top surface of the TIM layer (40) conforms to the profile of the bottom surface (34) of the lid structure (30) {[0038]}.
Regarding claim 22, Lai teaches the method of claim 21, and Lai further teaches wherein the bottom surface (34) comprises a central region and a peripheral region surrounding the central region, and a vertical thickness of the lid structure (30) at the central region is less than a vertical thickness of the lid structure (30) at the peripheral region {Fig. 1H}.
Regarding claim 23, Lai teaches the method of claim 22, and Lai further teaches wherein the bottom surface (34) further comprises a transition region between the central region and the peripheral region, and the vertical thickness of the lid structure increases from the central region toward the peripheral region {Fig. 1H}.
Regarding claim 26, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lai teaches the method of claim 21, and Lai further teaches wherein a profiled region of the bottom surface (34) [of the lid structure (30)] in which the profile varies overlaps, from a top view, the package structure (22) {Fig. 1H}.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho.
Regarding claim 2, Ho teaches the method of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein after attaching the lid (24) to the TIM (28), a top surface of the TIM (28) is conformal to the concave bottom surface of the lid (24) {Fig. 6F}.
Ho does not necessarily teach in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 6F the recessed portion of the lid has a concave bottom surface.
However, Ho teaches in Figs. 3B and 3C and paragraph [0034] a recessed portion (25) of a lid (24) has a concave bottom surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho’s method based on the further teachings of Ho, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because [o]ne skilled in the art can select a particular shape, or shapes, depending upon the application and design requirements. Ho [0034]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Still further, a change of shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Ho teaches the method of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the TIM (28) has a vertical thickness less than about 60 μm {0022]}. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Lai.
Regarding claim 3, Ho teaches the method of claim 1, but Ho does not teach wherein from a top view, the recessed portion of the lid has a central region and a first ring-shaped region surrounding the central region, and a vertical thickness of the central region of the lid is thinner than a vertical thickness of the first ring-shaped region of the lid.
In an analogous art, Lai teaches in Figs. 1H and 2B and paragraph [0043] a recessed portion (33) of a lid (30) has a central region (centermost region) and a first ring-shaped region (middle region of recess 33 within 30 between centermost region and outermost region of recess 33 within 30) surrounding the central region, and a vertical thickness of the central region of the lid (30) is thinner than a vertical thickness of the first ring-shaped region of the lid (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho’s method based on the teachings of Lai, to achieve the above-identified subject matter: (1) to allow[] the lower surface of the lid … [to be] more compliant to the top surface of the package and (2) so the heat dissipation ability and the reliability of the semiconductor package structure … are enhanced. Lai [0043]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Still further, a change of shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Ho as modified by Lai teaches the method of claim 3, but Ho does not teach wherein from the top view, the recessed portion of the lid has a second ring-shaped region surrounding the first ring-shaped region, and the vertical thickness of the first ring-shaped region of the lid is thinner than a vertical thickness of the second ring-shaped region of the lid.
Lai teaches in Figs. 1H and 2B and paragraph [0043] a recessed portion (33) of a lid (30) has a second ring-shaped region (outermost region of recess 33 within 30) surrounding the first ring-shaped region (middle region of recess 33 within 30 between centermost region and outermost region of recess 33 within 30), and the vertical thickness of the first ring-shaped region of the lid (30) is thinner than a vertical thickness of the second ring-shaped region of the lid (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho’s method as modified by Lai based on the further teachings of Lai to achieve the above-identified subject matter: (1) to allow[] the lower surface of the lid … [to be] more compliant to the top surface of the package and (2) so the heat dissipation ability and the reliability of the semiconductor package structure … are enhanced. Lai [0043]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Still further, a change of shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Park et al. (US20240371719A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ho teaches the method of claim 1, but Ho does not teach further comprising: forming a second adhesive layer over the substrate prior to attaching the lid, the second adhesive layer laterally surrounding the package component, wherein the step of attaching the lid comprises attaching the lid to the second adhesive layer, and the second adhesive layer does not overlap the recessed portion of the lid.
In an analogous art, Park teaches in Figs. 4b-4e and paragraphs [0030, 0031] forming a second adhesive layer (158) over a substrate (120) prior to attaching a lid (146), the second adhesive layer (158) laterally surrounding a package component (104), wherein a step of attaching the lid (146) comprises attaching the lid (146) to the second adhesive layer (158), and the second adhesive layer (146) does not overlap a recessed portion (149) of the lid (146). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho’s method based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter: (1) to seal the lid to the substrate and (2) to evenly and uniformly distribute a thermal over the package component within the recess. Park [0030, 0031]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 8, Ho as modified by Park teaches the method of claim 6, but Ho does not teach wherein the step of forming the first adhesive layer is performed after the step of forming the second adhesive layer.
However, Ho teaches in Fig. 6C forming a first adhesive layer (21) after forming a second adhesive layer (23). Moreover, only three alternatives exist for Park’s sequencing of forming the first and second adhesive layers: (1) both are formed simultaneously, (2) the first adhesive layer is formed before the second adhesive layer, and (3) the second adhesive layer is formed before the first adhesive layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho’s method as modified by Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Moreover, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of a new or unexpected result. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Ho.
Regarding claim 24, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lai teaches the method of claim 21, but Lai does not teach further comprising: forming an adhesive structure over the package component and laterally surrounding the TIM layer, wherein a profiled region of the bottom surface, in which the profile varies, overlaps from a top view the package structure and the TIM layer and does not overlap from the top view the adhesive structure.
Ho teaches in Figs. 2A-2C and 6F and paragraph [0040] forming an adhesive structure (21) over a package component (12) and laterally surrounding a TIM layer (28), wherein a profiled region (region of 25s) of a bottom surface [of a lid structure (24)], in which the profile varies, overlaps from a top view the package structure (12) and the TIM layer (28) and does not overlap from the top view the adhesive structure (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lai’s method based on the teachings of Ho, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to adhere the lid structure to a stiffener ring and the TIM layer and thereby form a package structure. Ho [0040]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Still further, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Kawanago et al. (US20250256363A1).
25. (New) The method of claim 21, further comprising: prior to placing the lid structure over the TIM layer, forming a conductive layer on the bottom surface of the lid structure, wherein the conductive layer is disposed between the bottom surface of the lid structure and the TIM layer after placing the lid structure.
In an analogous art, Kawanago teaches in Fig. 4 and paragraph [0202, 0203] that prior to placing a lid structure (10) over a TIM layer (20), forming a conductive layer (11) on a bottom surface of the lid structure (10), wherein the conductive layer (11) is disposed between the bottom surface of the lid structure (10) and the TIM layer (20) after placing the lid structure (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lai’s method based on the teachings of Kawanago, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to aid the process of bonding the lid structure to a substrate. Kawanago [0210, 0211]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Still further, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (US20210407963A1) teaches a package structure includes a semiconductor device, a circuit substrate and a heat dissipating lid. The semiconductor device includes a semiconductor die. The circuit substrate is bonded to and electrically coupled to the semiconductor device. The heat dissipating lid is bonded to the circuit substrate and thermally coupled to the semiconductor device, where the semiconductor device is located in a space confined by the heat dissipating lid and the circuit substrate. The heat dissipating lid includes a cover portion and a flange portion bonded to a periphery of the cover portion. The cover portion has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, where the cover portion includes a recess therein, the recess has an opening at the second surface, and a thickness of the recess is less than a thickness of the cover portion, where the recess is part of the space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights