Detailed Action
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
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20230197619 to Loh et al. (Loh).
Regarding Claim 1, Loh teaches in Fig. 3 at least, a semiconductor package comprising:
a package substrate 106 comprising a first voltage substrate wire 350;
an interposer substrate 110 disposed on the package substrate and comprising a first voltage interposer wire 222-2;
a first semiconductor chip 112 mounted on a top surface of the interposer substrate; and
a voltage control chip 118-2 disposed on the top surface of the interposer substrate and laterally spaced apart from the first semiconductor chip,
wherein the first semiconductor chip is electrically connected to the voltage control chip through the first voltage substrate wire, and wherein the first semiconductor chip is electrically connected to the voltage control chip through the first voltage interposer wire (through 222-2 and 350 simultaneously, although each do not connect directly or separately).
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.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh.
Regarding Claim 2, Loh teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the first voltage substrate wire is greater than a thickness of the first voltage interposer wire. However, the thickness of a wire directly affects its current carrying capability and is therefore a result effective variable that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Regarding Claim 6, Loh teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a second semiconductor chip mounted on the top surface of the interposer substrate and laterally spaced apart from the first semiconductor chip and the voltage control chip, wherein the package substrate further comprises a second voltage substrate wire, the interposer substrate further comprises a second voltage interposer wire, and the second semiconductor chip is electrically connected to the voltage control chip through the second voltage substrate wire and the second voltage interposer wire. However, this arrangement amounts to a mere duplication of parts absent a showing that a new or unexpected result is produced, and one does not appear on the record (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 7, Loh teaches the semiconductor package of claim 6, but does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the second voltage substrate wire is greater than a thickness of the first voltage interposer wire (see above rejection of Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Loh teaches the semiconductor package of claim 6, but does not explicitly teach that the second voltage substrate wire is connected to the first voltage substrate wire, and the second voltage interposer wire is connected to the first voltage interposer wire. However, the person of ordinary skill may readily come to such an arrangement after duplication of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9, and 10-20 are allowed or objected to as allowable if rewritten in independent form.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art does not teach the capacitor as required by the indicated claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVREN SEVEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5666. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00- 5:00 Pacific.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights