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 § 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 8-13 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 8, lines 7-8, the limitation “the dummy conductive pattern and electrically isolated from the first die” renders the claim indefinite. it is not clear where “the dummy conductive pattern” comes from.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Im et al [US 9,978,661].
With respect to claim 1, Im et al (fig. 17B) disclose a semiconductor package, comprising:
a first die (120, col. 9, lines 22-23);
a plurality of through vias (412, col. 23, lines 20-35) surrounding the first die; and
a thermal conductive pattern (412, col. 23, lines 20-35) surrounding the first die, wherein the thermal conductive pattern is disposed between and electrically isolated from the first die and the through vias.
With respect to claim 5, Im et al (fig. 16G) disclose wherein the thermal conductive pattern comprises (412, col. 23, lines 20-35) a plurality of discrete wall-shaped structures.
With respect to claim 6, Im et al (fig. 6B) disclose wherein the thermal conductive pattern (140) comprises a wall-shaped structure continuously extending along sidewalls of the first die.
With respect to claim 7, Im et al (fig. 17B) disclose an encapsulant (130, col. 9, lines 32-49) encapsulating the first die, the through vias and the thermal conductive pattern.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al [US 9,978,661] in view of Park et al [US 2010/0207262].
With respect to claim 2, Im et al do not mention wherein the thermal conductive pattern comprises a plurality of thermal conductive through vias arranged along at least one ring-shaped path surrounding the first die. However, Park et al (figs. 1 and 3) disclose the thermal conductive pattern (106, pp [0037]-[0038]) comprises a plurality of thermal conductive through vias arranged along at least one ring-shaped path surrounding the first die (302, pp [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to combine the teaching of Park et al into the device of Im et al since
the shape, size, dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 3, Park et al (figs. 1 and 3) disclose wherein at least one of the thermal conductive through vias (106, pp [0037]-[0038]) and at least one of the through vias are disposed along a line substantially parallel to a sidewall of the first die.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Claim 4 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose a first thermal conductive pattern, disposed between the first die and the second die; and a second thermal conductive pattern, disposed between the first die and the through vias, wherein the first thermal conductive pattern and the second thermal conductive pattern are thermally coupled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m-10:00p.m.
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, Drew Richards can be reached at 571-271-1736. 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.
/HOAI V PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights