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 .
Remarks
The 01/22/2026 amendments of claims 1-2, 6, 8 and 16-17 have been noted and entered.
The 01/22/2026 cancellation of claims 7, 12, 15 and 20 has been noted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of Sengupta et al, US 20080176362 A1 (Sengupta) and Ueda, JP 2008244228 A (Ueda).
New Grounds of Rejection
New grounds of rejection, prior art references Sengupta et al, US 20080176362 A1 (Sengupta) and Ueda, JP 2008244228 A (Ueda) appear below.
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 1-6, 8-11, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta et al, US 20080176362 A1 (Sengupta) in view of Ueda, JP 2008244228 A (Ueda) in further view of Male et al, US 20190206806 A1 (Male) in further view of Grillberger et al, US 20100052147 A1 (Grillberger).
Regarding claim 1; Sengupta teaches a method for fabricating an integrated circuit (IC) package, the method comprising: fabricating a semiconductor die (307) comprising an IC; applying a standoff (308) to a first surface (lower surface of the die (307)) of the semiconductor die (307); coupling a first surface of a cap (309) to the standoff (308), the cap (309) covering a portion of the first surface of the semiconductor die (307); and the standoff (308) is in direct contact with the semiconductor die (307).
PNG
media_image1.png
655
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sengupta does not teach patterning a film on a second surface of the cap opposite the first surface.
Ueda teaches patterning a film (52) on a second surface of the cap (51) opposite the first surface. Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by adding the patterned film on the second surface of the cap as disclosed in Ueda to improve the protection of the chip against mechanical stress and environmental elements leading to a more robust and reliable device.
PNG
media_image2.png
603
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sengupta in view of Ueda does not teach attaching a second surface of the semiconductor die opposite the first surface to a substrate; and depositing molding material over the semiconductor die to cover at least the first surface of the semiconductor die; wherein an air gap is formed between the film and the molding material.
Male teaches attaching a second surface of the semiconductor die (104) opposite the first surface to a substrate (102); .”); and depositing molding material (118) over the semiconductor die (104) to cover at least the first surface of the semiconductor die (104); wherein an air gap (204) is formed between the film (202) and the molding material (118) (see paragraph [0036] of the specification of Male: “[0036]… The gap 204 further isolates the die 106 from the environmental stresses (e.g., mechanical stress and/or change in temperature) to which the package 118 is subjected”). Sengupta in view of Ueda and Male are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda by attaching the semiconductor die to a substrate depositing a molding material to cover at least the first surface of the semiconductor die and forming an air gap between the film and the molding material as disclosed in Male to further protect the chip from mechanical stress and other environmental effects leading to better performance, extended longevity and better reliability of the device.
PNG
media_image3.png
693
925
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male does not teach etching at least one trench into the first surface of the semiconductor die.
Grillberger teaches etching at least one trench ((280A), ((280B), (280C) and (280D)) into the first surface of the semiconductor die (200). Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male and Grillberger are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male by using the etched trenches into the first surface of the semiconductor die as disclosed in Grillberger to improve the semiconductor die ability to withstand stress generated from mechanical or thermal factors acting on the die leading to a more durable and reliable device ([0032]).
PNG
media_image4.png
878
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Sengupta does not teach wherein fabricating the semiconductor die comprises fabricating the IC comprising precision components arranged proximal to the first surface of the semiconductor die, and wherein patterning the film comprises patterning the film on the second surface of the cap overlying the precision components.
Ueda teaches wherein patterning the film (52) comprises patterning the film (52) on the second surface of the cap (51). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by patterning a film on top of the cap layer to enhance the protection of the device leading to a more reliable device with higher longevity.
Sengupta in view of Ueda does not teach wherein fabrication of the semiconductor die comprises fabricating the IC comprising precision components arranged proximal to the first surface of the semiconductor die.
Male teaches wherein fabricating the semiconductor die (104) comprises fabricating the IC comprising precision components arranged proximal to the first surface of the semiconductor die (104) (see paragraphs [0003] and [0037] of the specifications of Male). Sengupta in view of Ueda and Male are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda by fabricating the precision components as disclosed in Male to enhance the performance of the device.
Regarding claim 3; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male does not teach wherein the at least one trench at least partially encloses the precision components.
Grillberger teaches wherein the at least one trench ((280A), ((280B), (280C) and (280D)) at least partially encloses the precision components ((200A), ((200B), and (200C)). Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male and Grillberger are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male by making the trench at least partially surround the precision components as disclosed in Grillberger to improve the device resilience against stress originating from mechanical or thermal causes leading to a more durable device ([0032]).
Regarding claim 4; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Sengupta does not teach wherein the film is formed from a photo-patternable polymer film material.
Ueda teaches wherein the film (52) is formed from a photo-patternable polymer film material (see the specification of Ueda: “Subsequently, the polyimide resin film 52 and the silicon nitride film 51 are sequentially etched using a photoresist film patterned by a photolithography technique as a mask”.). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by using the photo-patternable polymer film as disclosed in Ueda due to its well-known characteristics of durability, flexibility, versatility, and cost-effectiveness.
Regarding claim 5; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Sengupta does not teach wherein the photo-patternable polymer film material is either an SU-8 material or a polyimide material.
Ueda teaches that the photo-patternable polymer film (52) material is either an SU-8 or a polyimide (see the specifications of Ueda: “Subsequently, the polyimide resin film 52 and the silicon nitride film 51 are sequentially etched using a photoresist film patterned by a photolithography technique as a mask”.). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by constructing the film out of a photo-patternable polyimide as disclosed in Ueda since it is a widely used material due to its thermal stability, flexibility, and strength.
Regarding claim 6; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Sengupta does not teach wherein patterning the film comprises performing a photo- patterning process to pattern the film on the second surface of the cap.
Ueda teaches wherein patterning the film (52) comprises performing a photo- patterning process to pattern the film (52) on the second surface of the cap (51) (see the specification of Ueda: "Subsequently, the polyimide resin film 52 and the silicon nitride film 51 are sequentially etched using a photoresist film patterned by a photolithography technique as a mask"). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by constructing the film using a photo-patterning process to pattern the film on the second surface of the cap as disclosed by Ueda given the photo-patterning process advantages, including capability to product intricate, high-resolution features and tight tolerances that are difficult to obtain with other processes.
Regarding claim 8; Sengupta teaches an integrated circuit (IC) package, comprising: a semiconductor die comprising an IC; a standoff (308) coupled to a first surface of the semiconductor die (307); a cap (309) coupled to the standoff (308), the cap (309) covering a portion of the first surface of the semiconductor die (307); wherein the standoff (308) is in direct contact with the semiconductor die (307).
Sengupta does not teach a film coupled to the cap.
Ueda teaches a film (52) coupled to the cap (51). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by constructing a film that is coupled to the as disclosed in Ueda to improve the isolation and resilience of the device leading to a more reliable device.
Sengupta in view of Ueda does not teach a substrate coupled to a second surface of the semiconductor die opposite the first surface; molding material covering at least the first surface of the semiconductor die; and an air gap between the film and the molding material.
Male teaches a substrate (102) coupled to a second surface of the semiconductor die (104) opposite the first surface; molding material (118) covering at least the first surface of the semiconductor die (104); and an air gap (204) between the film (202) and the molding material (118) (see paragraph [0036] of the specification of Male: “[0036]… The gap 204 further isolates the die 106 from the environmental stresses (e.g., mechanical stress and/or change in temperature) to which the package 118 is subjected.”). Sengupta in view of Ueda and Male are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda by attaching the semiconductor die to a substrate and forming an air gap between the film and the molding material as disclosed in Male to further protect the chip from mechanical stress and other environmental effects leading to better performance, extended longevity and better reliability of the device.
Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male does not teach at least one trench etched into the first surface of the semiconductor die.
Grillberger teaches at least one trench ((280A), ((280B), (280C) and (280D)) etched into the first surface of the semiconductor die (200). Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male and Grillberger are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male by using the etched trenches into the first surface of the semiconductor die as disclosed in Grillberger to improve the semiconductor die ability to withstand stress generated from mechanical or thermal effects on the die leading to a more durable and reliable device ([0032]).
Regarding claim 9; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
Sengupta in view of Ueda does not teach wherein the IC comprises precision components arranged proximal to the first surface of the semiconductor die, and wherein the portion of the first surface of the semiconductor die overlays the precision components.
Male teaches wherein the IC comprises precision components arranged proximal to the first surface of the semiconductor die (104) (see paragraphs [0003] and [0037] of the specifications of Male), and wherein the portion of the first surface of the semiconductor die (104) overlays the precision components. Sengupta in view of Ueda and Male are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda by fabricating the precision components as disclosed in Male to enhance the performance of the device.
Regarding claim 10; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
Sengupta does not teach wherein the film is formed from a photo-patternable polymer film material.
Ueda teaches wherein the film (52) is formed from a photo-patternable polymer film material (see the specifications of Ueda: "Subsequently, the polyimide resin film 52 and the silicon nitride film 51 are sequentially etched using a photoresist film patterned by a photolithography technique as a mask".). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by constructing the film out of a photo-patternable polymer material as disclosed in Ueda due to its well-known characteristics of durability, flexibility, versatility, and cost-effectiveness.
Regarding claim 11; Sengupta in view Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
Sengupta does not teach wherein the photo-patternable polymer film material is either an SU-8 material or a polyimide material.
Ueda teaches wherein the photo-patternable polymer film (52) material is either an SU-8 material or a polyimide material (see the specifications of Ueda: "Subsequently, the polyimide resin film 52 and the silicon nitride film 51 are sequentially etched using a photoresist film patterned by a photolithography technique as a mask".). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by constructing the film out of a photo-patternable polyimide as disclosed in Ueda due to its well-known characteristics of durability, flexibility, versatility, and cost-effectiveness.
Regarding claim 14; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male does not teach wherein the at least one trench at least partially encloses the precision components.
Grillberger teaches wherein the at least one trench ((280A), ((280B), (280C) and (280D)) at least partially encloses the precision components ((200A), ((200B), and (200C)). Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male and Grillberger are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male by using the trench at least partially surrounding the precision components as disclosed in Grillberger to improve the protection of the device against mechanical stress leading to a more reliable device ([0032]).
Regarding claim 16; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
Further, Sengupta teaches wherein a first surface of the cap (309) is coupled to the standoff (308).
Sengupta does not teach wherein the film is coupled to a second surface of the cap opposite the first surface.
However, Ueda teaches wherein the film (52) is coupled to a second surface of the cap (51) opposite the first surface. Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by adding the film coupled to the second surface of the cap as disclosed in Ueda to enhance the isolation and protection of the device leading to a more robust and reliable device.
Regarding claim 17; Sengupta teaches an integrated circuit (IC) package, comprising: a semiconductor die comprising an IC; a standoff (308) coupled to the first surface of the semiconductor die (307); a cap (309) having a first surface coupled to the standoff (308) and covering a portion of the first surface of the semiconductor die (307); wherein the standoff (308) is in direct contact with the semiconductor die (307).
Sengupta does not teach a photo-patternable polymer film photo-patterned on a second surface of the cap opposite the first surface.
Ueda teaches a photo-patternable polymer film (52) photo-patterned on a second surface of the cap (51) opposite the first surface (see the specifications of Ueda: "Subsequently, the polyimide resin film 52 and the silicon nitride film 51 are sequentially etched using a photoresist film patterned by a photolithography technique as a mask".). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by constructing the photo-patternable polymer film layer disclosed by Ueda to enhance the protection of the device against mechanical stress and environmental factors leading to a more reliable device.
Sengupta in view of Ueda does not teach the IC comprising precision components arranged proximal to a first surface of the semiconductor die, the portion of the first surface of the semiconductor die overlying the precision components; molding material covering at least the first surface of the semiconductor die; a substrate coupled to a second surface of the semiconductor die opposite the first surface; and an air gap between the photo-patternable polymer film and the molding material.
Male teaches the IC comprising precision components arranged proximal to a first surface of the semiconductor die (104) (see paragraphs [0003] and [0037] of the specification of Male), the portion of the first surface of the semiconductor die (104) overlying the precision components; molding material (118) covering at least the first surface of the semiconductor die (104); a second surface of the semiconductor die (104) opposite the first surface to a substrate (102); and an air gap (204) between the film (202) and the molding material (118) (see paragraph [0036] of the specification of Male: “[0036]… The gap 204 further isolates the die 106 from the environmental stresses (e.g., mechanical stress and/or change in temperature) to which the package 118 is subjected.”). Sengupta in view of Ueda and Male are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda by attaching the semiconductor die containing the precision equipment to a substrate and forming an air gap between the film and the molding material as disclosed in Male to further protect the chip from mechanical stress and other environmental effects leading to better performance, extended longevity and better reliability of the device.
Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male does not teach at least one trench etched into the first surface of the semiconductor die.
Grillberger teaches at least one trench ((280A), ((280B), (280C) and (280D)) etched into the first surface of the semiconductor die (200). Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male and Grillberger are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male by using the etched trenches into the first surface of the semiconductor die as disclosed in Grillberger to improve the semiconductor die ability to withstand stress generated from mechanical or thermal effects on the die leading to a more durable and reliable device ([0032]).
Regarding claim 18; Sengupta in view of Ueda in view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
Sengupta does not teach wherein the photo-patternable polymer film material is either an SU-8 material or a polyimide material.
Ueda teaches that the photo-patternable polymer film (52) material is either an SU-8 or a polyimide (see the specifications of Ueda: “"Subsequently, the polyimide resin film 52 and the silicon nitride film 51 are sequentially etched using a photoresist film patterned by a photolithography technique as a mask".). Sengupta and Ueda are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta by constructing the film out of a photo-patternable polyimide as disclosed in Ueda due to its well-known characteristics of durability, flexibility, versatility, and cost-effectiveness.
Regarding claim 19; Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of view of Male in further view of Grillberger teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male does not teach wherein the at least one trench at least partially encloses the precision components.
Grillberger teaches wherein the at least one trench ((280A), ((280B), (280C) and (280D)) at least partially encloses the precision components ((200A), ((200B), and (200C)). Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male and Grillberger are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Sengupta in view of Ueda in further view of Male by using the trench at least partially surrounding the precision components as disclosed in Grillberger to improve the protection of the device against mechanical stress leading to a more reliable device ([0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815