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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received 8/2/24 cancelling claims 21-28.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 19 December 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2023-0186299 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 10-2023-0186299 to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 05/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statement has been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Drawings
There are no objections or rejections to the drawings.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 17-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the at least one first semiconductor chip of the first type and the at least one second semiconductor chip of the second type are alternately stacked on the package substrate”. It is unclear what is meant by alternately stacked. One reasonable interpretation is that the they are stacked one on top of the other (which would be in conflict with the other claim limitations. Another reasonable interpretation is that the at least one first semiconductor chip of the first type is stacked on the substrate and then the at least one second semiconductor chip of the second type is stacked on the substrate (product by process claim). The limitation does not have well defined boundaries. One of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not know what structures/steps are covered by the limitation. For these reasons, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 17-20 depend from rejected claim 1, include all limitations of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2022/0100077) hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Per Claim 1 Lee discloses a semiconductor device, (see figures 8 and 15) comprising
a first semiconductor chip of a first type (1003a) and a second semiconductor chip of a second type (1003b) having rectangular shapes with a same size (see figure 15),
wherein the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip are included in a plurality of semiconductor chips corresponding to 1-shot in an exposure process [0099], and
when the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip are arranged adjacent to each other in a first direction in the 1-shot (as shown in figure 15), the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip are mirror-symmetrical to each other with respect to an axis in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as shown in figure 15).
Claim 1 included limitations that are "product-by-process" limitations (i.e. 1-shot in an exposure process). While product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17(footnote 3). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See also in re Brown, 173 USPQ 685: In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324: In re Avery, 186 USPQ 116 in re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 254 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289 final product per se which must be determined in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Insofar as definite, per Claim 17 Lee discloses a semiconductor package device, (see figures 8 and 15) comprising
a package substrate (1001); at least one first semiconductor chip of a first type (1003a) on the package substrate; and at least one second semiconductor chip of a second type (1003b) on the package substrate, wherein the at least one first semiconductor chip and the at least one second semiconductor chip have rectangular shapes with a same size(see figure 15)
when the at least one first semiconductor chip and the at least one second semiconductor chip are arranged adjacent to each other in a first direction in 1-shot in an exposure process [0099], and
the at least one first semiconductor chip of the first type and the at least one second semiconductor chip of the second type are alternately stacked on the package substrate (as shown in figure 15, (1003a) on the left and (1003b) on the right, which satisfies the recitation of alternately stacked.)
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2023/0197687) hereinafter referred to as Bang.
Per Claim 7 Bang discloses a semiconductor package device, (see figs. 1-2) comprising
a package substrate (100);
a first semiconductor chip (220) of a first type on the package substrate; and
a second semiconductor chip (230) of a second type stacked on the first semiconductor chip,
wherein the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip have rectangular shapes with a same size, (see figures 1-2) and
when arranged in a first direction, the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip are mirror-symmetrical to each other with respect to a reference line extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see figures 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 8-16 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. Claims 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Choi (US 2022/0254756) is cited for teaching an analogous device that includes a different interpretation of “alternately arranged”.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMI VALENTINE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9786. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/Jami Valentine Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights