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 .
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 11/26/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection Chen, US 20130056847 A1 (Chen), Hosokawa et al, US 20210327630 A1 (Hosokawa) and Hou et al, US 20200211959 A1 (Hou) are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-33, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen, US 20130056847 A1 (Chen), Hosokawa et al, US 20210327630 A1 (Hosokawa) and Hou et al, US 20200211959 A1 (Hou).
New Grounds of Rejection
The following new ground(s) of rejection, Chen, US 20130056847 A1 (Chen), Hosokawa et al, US 20210327630 A1 (Hosokawa) and Hou et al, US 20200211959 A1 (Hou) 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, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760 A1 (Brassfield) in view of Chen, US 20130056847 A1 (Chen).
Regarding claim 1; Brassfield teaches a semiconductor package (600), comprising: a package substrate (210) having a top surface including traces (see paragraph [0037] of the specification of Brassfield: “[0037] The module substrate 210 may be a multi-layer laminate that includes in one or more layers of conductive traces (e.g., copper traces) separated by an insulator (e.g., an insulating film or resin). For example, the module substrate 210 may be constructed using PCB technology or can comprise a leadframe.”) and bonding features (Bonding Features – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield shared in this OA for convenience); at least one semiconductor die (204) comprising a substrate having a semiconductor surface including circuitry electrically coupled to bond pads (Bond Pads – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield included in this OA) mounted on the bonding features (Bonding Features – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield included in this OA); at least one inductor coil (302) mounted with a first contact (404) and a second contact (404) that are positioned on the bonding features (Bonding Features – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield included in this OA) beyond the semiconductor die (204) including a portion of the inductor coil (302) over the semiconductor die (204); and a magnetic mold (502) compound comprising magnetic particles and a dielectric material (see paragraph [0032] of the specification of Brassfield) that encapsulates the semiconductor die (204), the inductor (302), and the dielectric coating (see paragraph [0026] of Brassfield discussing the inductor coil wire being coated in a dielectric material which is covered by the magnetic mold: “[0026]… The conductor may be an insulated round wire, an insulated rectangular wire, etc. For example, the conductor may be an insulated copper wire (e.g., enamel/polyimide/plastic coated copper).”).
PNG
media_image1.png
869
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Brassfield does not teach a dielectric coating on and within the inductor coil, on the semiconductor die, on the traces, and on the bonding features.
Chen teaches a dielectric coating (442) on and within the inductor coil (420), on the semiconductor die (410), on the traces (476), and on the bonding features (474) (see paragraphs [0028] and [0029] of the specification of Chen: “[0028]... Dielectric material 442 may be provided within the inductor layer 420 to electrically isolate all turns of the winding 430 from the magnetic core 440."). Brassfield and Chen 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 Brassfield by using a dielectric coating layer on and within the inductor coil and on the semiconductor die, the traces and on the bonding features as disclosed in Chen to improve the electrical insulation of the different elements in the device leading to a more reliable device.
PNG
media_image2.png
593
819
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Brassfield in view of Chen does not specifically recite the magnetic mold encapsulating the dielectric coating, 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 Brassfield in view of Chen by making the magnetic mold cover the dielectric coating implemented from Chen as disclosed in Brassfield with regards to the magnetic mold covering the dielectric coating of the inductor coil wires to improve the magnetic flux confinement while protecting against potential electrical short circuits thus leading to a more efficient transformer.
Regarding claim 3; Brassfield in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the magnetic particles are encapsulated by the dielectric material (see paragraph [0032] of the specification of Brassfield).
Regarding claim 5; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Brassfield does not teach wherein the dielectric coating comprises silicon nitride, boron nitride (BN), silica, silicone or parylene.
Chen teaches wherein the dielectric coating comprises silicon nitride, boron nitride (BN), silica, silicone or parylene (see paragraph [0034] of the specification of Chen: “[0034] In an embodiment, the dielectric materials may be high dielectric breakdown materials such as polyimide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride and the like.”). Brassfield and Chen 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 Brassfield by using the dielectric coating material disclosed in Chen to improve the insulation of the circuit components and prevent short circuits.
Regarding claim 6; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the semiconductor package (600) comprises a power module (204), and wherein the semiconductor die (204) comprises both a first field effect transistor (FET), and a second FET (see paragraph [0026] of the specification of Brassfield: “[0026]… Each switch-mode converter module 202 includes a module substrate 210 which may also be called a package substrate, one or more power supply switching components (e.g., a power supply controller 204 and/or discrete transistors) and various other electronic components 206 (e.g., resistors, capacitors, etc.) that are attached to the module substrate 210 in block 102.”).
Regarding claim 7; Brassfield in view of Chen in further view of Yin teach all the limitations of claim 6.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the semiconductor die (204) is flip chip mounted on the bonding features (Bonding Features – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield shared in this OA) (see paragraph [0026] of the specification of Brassfield: “[0026]… The power supply controller 204 can be mounted to the module substrate 210 using a flip chip connection, wirebond, Wafer Level Chip Scale Package (WCSP), or a packaged device.”), and wherein the semiconductor package (600) further comprises a gate driver (see paragraph [0049] of the specification of Brassfield).
Regarding claim 8; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the inductor coil (302) comprises a transformer (see paragraph [0005] and [0006] of the specification of Brassfield).
Regarding claim 10; Brassfield teaches a method of forming a semiconductor package (600), comprising: mounting at least one semiconductor die(204) comprising a substrate having a semiconductor surface including circuitry (see paragraph [0049] of the specification of Brassfield) electrically connected to bond pads (Bond Pads – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield included in this OA) on bonding features (Bonding Features – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield included in this OA) of a package substrate (210) having a top surface further including traces(see paragraph [0037] of the specification of Brassfield: “[0037] The module substrate 210 may be a multi-layer laminate that includes in one or more layers of conductive traces (e.g., copper traces) separated by an insulator (e.g., an insulating film or resin). For example, the module substrate 210 may be constructed using PCB technology or can comprise a leadframe.”), and an inductor coil (302) mounted with a first contact (404) and a second contact (404) that are positioned on the bonding features (Bonding Features – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield included in this OA) beyond the semiconductor die (204) including a portion of the inductor coil (302) over the semiconductor die (204); and forming a magnetic mold (502) compound comprising magnetic particles and a dielectric material (see paragraph [0032] of the specification of Brassfield) encapsulating the semiconductor die (204) and the dielectric coating (see paragraph [0026] of Brassfield discussing the inductor coil wire being coated in a dielectric material which is covered by the magnetic mold: “[0026]… The conductor may be an insulated round wire, an insulated rectangular wire, etc. For example, the conductor may be an insulated copper wire (e.g., enamel/polyimide/plastic coated copper).”).
However, Brassfield does not teach forming a dielectric coating on the inductor coil, on the semiconductor die, on the traces, and on the bonding features.
Chen teaches forming a dielectric coating (442) on the inductor coil (420), on the semiconductor die (410), on the traces (476), and on the bonding features (474) (see paragraphs [0028] and [0029] of the specification of Chen: “[0028]... Dielectric material 442 may be provided within the inductor layer 420 to electrically isolate all turns of the winding 430 from the magnetic core 440."). Brassfield and Chen 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 Brassfield by using a dielectric coating layer on the inductor coil and on the semiconductor die, the traces and on the bonding features as disclosed in Chen to improve the electrical insulation of the different elements in the device leading to a more reliable device.
While Brassfield in view of Chen does not disclose the magnetic mold encapsulating the dielectric coating, 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 Brassfield in view of Chen by making the magnetic mold cover the dielectric coating implemented from Chen as disclosed in Brassfield with regards to the magnetic mold covering the dielectric coating of the inductor coil wires to improve the magnetic flux confinement while protecting against potential electrical short circuits thus leading to a more efficient transformer.
Regarding claim 11; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 10.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the magnetic particles are encapsulated by the dielectric material (see paragraph [0032] of the specification of Brassfield).
Regarding claim 14; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 10.
However, Brassfield does not teach wherein the dielectric coating comprises silicon nitride, boron nitride (BN), silica, silicone or parylene.
Chen teaches wherein the dielectric coating comprises silicon nitride, boron nitride (BN), silica, silicone or parylene (see paragraph [0034] of the specification of Chen: “[0034] In an embodiment, the dielectric materials may be high dielectric breakdown materials such as polyimide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride and the like.”). Brassfield and Chen 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 Brassfield by using the dielectric coating material disclosed in Chen to improve the insulation of the circuit components and prevent short circuits.
Regarding claim 15; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 10.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the semiconductor package (600) comprises a power module (204), and wherein the semiconductor die (204) comprises both a first field effect transistor (FET), and a second FET (see paragraph [0026] of the specification of Brassfield: “[0026]… Each switch-mode converter module 202 includes a module substrate 210 which may also be called a package substrate, one or more power supply switching components (e.g., a power supply controller 204 and/or discrete transistors) and various other electronic components 206 (e.g., resistors, capacitors, etc.) that are attached to the module substrate 210 in block 102.”).
Regarding claim 16; Brassfield in view of Chen in further view of Yin teach all the limitations of claim 10.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the mounting comprises flipchip mounting (see paragraph [0026] of the specification of Brassfield: “[0026]… The power supply controller 204 can be mounted to the module substrate 210 using a flip chip connection, wirebond, Wafer Level Chip Scale Package (WCSP), or a packaged device.”).
Regarding claim 18; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 10.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the inductor coil (302) comprises a transformer (see paragraph [0005] and [0006] of the specification of Brassfield).
Regarding claim 19; Brassfield in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
Further, Brassfield teaches wherein the forming of the magnetic mold (502) compound comprises compression molding (see paragraph [0043] of the specification of Brassfield: “[0043]… Disclosed methods are advantageous for both compression molding and transfer molding processes.”).
Regarding claim 20; Brassfield in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
Further, Brasfield teaches wherein the bond pads (Bond Pads – see annotated Fig (6) of Brassfield included in this OA) include solder thereon (see paragraph [0025] of the specification of Brassfield: “[0025]… The components may be affixed to pads on the surface of the module substrate by solder paste, electrically conductive adhesive, or other adhesive material suitable for attaching electronic components to a substrate.”).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760 A1 (Brassfield) in view of Chen, US 20130056847 A1 (Chen) in further view of Noquil et al, US 20210082889 A1 (Noquil).
Regarding claim 2; Brassfield in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Brasfield in view of Chen does not teach wherein the package substrate comprises a routable leadframe (RLF).
Noquil teaches wherein the package substrate comprises a routable leadframe (RLF) (120) (see claim 1 of Noquil). Brassfield in view of Chen and Noquil 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 Brassfield in view of Chen by using a routable leadframe as disclosed in Noquil to make the process of routing the electrical connections in the device easier and more flexible leading to a more efficient device production process.
Regarding claim 12; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 10.
However, Brasfield in view of Chen does not teach wherein the package substrate comprises a routable leadframe (RLF).
Noquil teaches wherein the package substrate comprises a routable leadframe (RLF) (120) (see claim 1 of Noquil). Brassfield in view of Chen and Noquil 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 Brassfield in view of Chen by using a routable leadframe as disclosed in Noquil to make the process of routing the electrical connections in the device easier and more flexible leading to a more efficient device production process.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760 A1 (Brassfield) in view of Chen, US 20130056847 A1 (Chen) in further view of Hosokawa et al, US 20210327630 A1 (Hosokawa).
Regarding claim 9; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Brassfield in view of Chen does not teach wherein a thickness of the dielectric coating is 0.3 to 10 µm.
Hosokawa teaches wherein a thickness of the dielectric coating is 0.3 to 10 µm (see paragraph [0085] of the specification of Hosokawa: “[0085]… From this viewpoint, it is preferable that the surface of the conductive wire forming coil 30 is covered with an insulating coating or that insulating paper is wound around the surface of the conductive wire. The thickness of the insulating coating or the insulating paper is preferably 0.001 mm or more and 0.1 mm or less. This can suppress occurrence of a short circuit between a pair of adjacent turns of coil 30.”). Brassfield in view of Chen and Hosokawa 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 Brassfield in view of Chen by using the range of thickness of the dielectric coating disclosed in Hosokawa to lower the possibilities of a short circuit in the device leading to a more reliable device.
Regarding claim 17; Brassfield in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 10.
However, Brassfield in view of Chen does not teach wherein a thickness of the dielectric coating is 0.3 to 10 µm.
Hosokawa teaches wherein a thickness of the dielectric coating is 0.3 to 10 µm (see paragraph [0085] of the specification of Hosokawa: “[0085]… From this viewpoint, it is preferable that the surface of the conductive wire forming coil 30 is covered with an insulating coating or that insulating paper is wound around the surface of the conductive wire. The thickness of the insulating coating or the insulating paper is preferably 0.001 mm or more and 0.1 mm or less. This can suppress occurrence of a short circuit between a pair of adjacent turns of coil 30.”). Brassfield in view of Chen and Hosokawa 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 Brassfield in view of Chen by using the range of thickness of the dielectric coating disclosed in Hosokawa to lower the possibilities of a short circuit in the device leading to a more reliable device.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760 A1 (Brassfield) in view of Chen, US 20130056847 A1 (Chen) in further view of Hou et al, (Hou).
Regarding claim 4; Brassfield in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Brassfield in view of Chen does not teach wherein the magnetic mold compound has a magnetic permeability from 15 to 25.
Hou teaches wherein the magnetic mold compound (125) has a magnetic permeability from 15 to 25 (see paragraph [0019] of the limitations of Hou: “"[0019] The magnetic mold compound 125 also has a relatively high-permeability compared to the permeability of air. In one example, the magnetic mold compound has a relative permeability of at least 5, which is approximately five times that of air. In other examples, the magnetic mold compound has a relative permeability of 10-40. In some examples, the magnetic mold compound also has a relative permittivity of at least 10."). Brassfield in view of Chen and Hou 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 Brassfield in view of Chen by using the magnetic mold compound with the magnetic permeability in the range disclosed by Hou to improve magnetic flux confinement thus leading to a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 13; Brassfield in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
However, Brassfield in view of Chen does not teach wherein the magnetic mold compound has a magnetic permeability from 15 to 25.
Hou teaches wherein the magnetic mold compound (125) has a magnetic permeability from 15 to 25 (see paragraph [0019] of the limitations of Hou: “"[0019] The magnetic mold compound 125 also has a relatively high-permeability compared to the permeability of air. In one example, the magnetic mold compound has a relative permeability of at least 5, which is approximately five times that of air. In other examples, the magnetic mold compound has a relative permeability of 10-40. In some examples, the magnetic mold compound also has a relative permittivity of at least 10."). Brassfield in view of Chen and Hou 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 Brassfield in view of Chen by using the magnetic mold compound with the magnetic permeability in the range disclosed by Hou to improve magnetic flux confinement thus leading to a more efficient device.
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