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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-31 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an updated prior art search.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yim et al. (US-20170005453-A1 – hereinafter Yim).
Regarding claim 14, Yim teaches a semiconductor device (Fig.1A; ¶0013), comprising:
a semiconductor die (Fig.1A 105; ¶0013) including an optical region (Fig.1A 120; ¶0013) formed on a surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor die (105) so as to be exposed from the surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor die (105);
a dam wall (Fig.1A 150; ¶0014) formed in contact with the surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor die (105) to extend from the surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor die (105) proximate to the optical region (120);
an electrical component (Fig.1A 100; ¶0013) disposed over the semiconductor die (105) to occupy an area less than a footprint (100 is smaller than 105) of the semiconductor die (105);
a substrate (Fig.1A 110; ¶0013), wherein the semiconductor die (105) and electrical component (100) are disposed over the substrate (110) with separation between the dam wall (150) and substrate (110; see ¶0014 and Fig.2A); and
an underfill material (Fig.1A 155; ¶0014) deposited between and in contact with the semiconductor die (105) and substrate (110) to completely enclose the electrical component (100), wherein the dam wall (150) inhibits (¶0014) the underfill material (155) from contacting the optical region (120).
Regarding claim 15, Yim teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, further including a plurality of conductive posts (Fig.1A 135; ¶0013) formed over the semiconductor die (105).
Regarding claim 19, Yim teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, further including an insulating layer (Fig.1A 180 and 181; ¶0016) formed over the substrate (110) outside the dam wall (150).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view of Kim et al. (US-20230085734-A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 16, Yim teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14.
Yim does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a vertical segment and side wings.
Kim teaches an IC device package (Fig.1A 1; ¶0022 of Kim) having a dam (Fig.1A 250; ¶0038 of Kim) comprising a vertical segment and side wings (Fig.2B of Kim depicts a plan view of 250 which can be broadly interpreted to anticipate the claimed language).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dam wall of Yim (150 of Yim) to comprise the side wings of Kim (Fig.2B of Kim).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view of Spreitzer et al. (US-20230207412-A1 – hereinafter Spreitzer).
Regarding claim 17, Yim teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14.
Yim does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a plurality of rounded segments integrated with a plurality of vertical segments as a unitary body.
Spreitzer teaches a dam wall that includes a plurality of rounded segments linked together as a unitary body (Fig.7A 709; ¶0049 of Spreitzer).
The term “vertical segments” is interpreted simply as straight segments because this claim can only be drawn to Figure 5b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the rounded barrier segments of Spreitzer (709 of Spreitzer) with the straight barrier taught by Yim (150 of Yim) to yield a barrier having a plurality of rounded segments integrated with a plurality of vertical segments as a unitary body, similar to the shape depicted in Fig.5b of Applicant’s disclosure.
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view of Brun et al. (US-20240006312-A1 – hereinafter Brun).
Regarding claim 18, Yim teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14.
Yim does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a plurality of separate vertical segments.
Brun teaches an IC device package (Fig.11C 1102) having a barrier comprising a plurality of separate vertical segments (Fig.11C 1019; ¶0089 of Brun).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dam wall of Yim (150 of Yim) to comprise the separate vertical segments of Brun (1019 of Brun).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 20-22, 26-28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view of Razdan et al. (US-9964719-B1 – hereinafter Razdan).
Regarding claim 20, Yim teaches a semiconductor device (Fig.1A; ¶0013), comprising:
a semiconductor die (Fig.1A 105; ¶0013) including an optical region (Fig.1A 120; ¶0013) formed on a major surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor die (105) to be exposed from the major surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor die (105);
a dam wall (Fig.1A 150; ¶0014) formed in contact with the major surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor die (105) proximate to the optical region (120) exposed from the major surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor die (105);
a substrate (Fig.1A 110; ¶0013), wherein the semiconductor die (105) is disposed over the substrate (110) with no contact between the dam wall (150) and substrate (110; see ¶0014 and Fig.2A); and
an underfill material (Fig.1A 155; ¶0014) deposited over the semiconductor die (105), wherein the dam wall (150) inhibits the underfill material (155) from contacting the optical region (120).
Yim does not teach wherein the optical region is further exposed from a side surface of the semiconductor die and wherein the underfill material is further inhibited from contacting a portion of the optical region exposed from the side surface of the semiconductor die.
Razdan teaches a die (Fig.1 101; Col.4 lines 40-49 of Razdan) with an optical region (Fig.1 110; Col.4 lines 40-49 of Razdan) that is exposed from both a major side (top side of 101 of Razdan) and a side surface of the die (101 of Razdan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical region of Yim (120 of Yim) to also be exposed from a side surface of the die of Yim (105 of Yim) as taught by Razdan (Fig.1 of Razdan) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for applications requiring side facing transmission holes (see ¶0018 of Yim).
Regarding claim 21, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 20 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 20, further including an electrical component (Fig.1A 100; ¶0013 of Yim) disposed over the semiconductor die (105 of Yim), wherein the underfill material (155 of Yim) completely encloses the electrical component (100 of Yim).
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 20 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 20, further including a plurality of conductive posts (Fig.1A 135; ¶0013 of Yim) formed over the semiconductor die (105 of Yim).
Regarding claim 26, Yim teaches a semiconductor device (Fig.1A; ¶0013), comprising:
a first electrical component (Fig.1A 105; ¶0013) including an optical region (Fig.1A 120; ¶0013) formed on a major surface (bottom surface) of the electrical component (105) to be exposed from the major surface (bottom surface) of the electrical component (105);
a dam wall (Fig.1A 150; ¶0014) formed in contact with the major surface (bottom surface) of the first electrical component (105) proximate to the optical region (120) exposed from the major surface (bottom surface) of the first electrical component (105);
a substrate (Fig.1A 110; ¶0013), wherein the first electrical component (105) is disposed over the substrate (110) with no contact between the dam wall (150) and substrate (110; see ¶0014 and Fig.2A); and
an underfill material (Fig.1A 155; ¶0014) deposited over the first electrical component (105), wherein the dam wall (150) blocks the underfill material (155) from contacting a portion of the optical region (120).
Yim does not teach wherein the optical region is further exposed from a side surface of the first electrical component and wherein the underfill material is inhibited from contacting a portion of the optical region exposed from the side surface of the semiconductor die.
Razdan teaches a die (Fig.1 101; Col.4 lines 40-49 of Razdan) with an optical region (Fig.1 110; Col.4 lines 40-49 of Razdan) that is exposed from both a major side (top side of 101 of Razdan) and a side surface of the die (101 of Razdan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical region of Yim (120 of Yim) to also be exposed from a side surface of the die of Yim (105 of Yim) as taught by Razdan (Fig.1 of Razdan) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for applications requiring side facing transmission holes (see ¶0018 of Yim).
Regarding claim 27, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 26 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 26, further including a second electrical component (Fig.1A 100; ¶0013 of Yim) disposed over the first electrical component (105 of Yim), wherein the underfill (155 of Yim) material completely encloses the second electrical component (100 of Yim).
Regarding claim 28, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 26 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 26, further including a plurality of conductive posts (Fig.1A 135; ¶0013 of Yim) formed over the first electrical component (105 of Yim).
Regarding claim 32, Yim teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, wherein the dam wall (150) inhibits the underfill material (155) from contacting the optical region (120).
Yim does not teach wherein the optical region is exposed from a side surface of the semiconductor die and the dam wall inhibits the underfill material from further contacting a portion of the optical region exposed from the side surface of the semiconductor die.
Razdan teaches a die (Fig.1 101; Col.4 lines 40-49 of Razdan) with an optical region (Fig.1 110; Col.4 lines 40-49 of Razdan) that is exposed from both a major side (top side of 101 of Razdan) and a side surface of the die (101 of Razdan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical region of Yim (120 of Yim) to also be exposed from a side surface of the die of Yim (105 of Yim) as taught by Razdan (Fig.1 of Razdan) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for applications requiring side facing transmission holes (see ¶0018 of Yim).
Claim(s) 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view Razdan, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 20 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 20.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a vertical segment and side wings.
Kim teaches an IC device package (Fig.1A 1; ¶0022 of Kim) having a dam (Fig.1A 250; ¶0038 of Kim) comprising a vertical segment and side wings (Fig.2B of Kim depicts a plan view of 250 which can be broadly interpreted to anticipate the claimed language).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dam wall of Yim (150 of Yim) in view of Razdan to comprise the side wings of Kim (Fig.2B of Kim).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 29, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 26 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 26.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a vertical segment and side wings.
Kim teaches an IC device package (Fig.1A 1; ¶0022 of Kim) having a dam (Fig.1A 250; ¶0038 of Kim) comprising a vertical segment and side wings (Fig.2B of Kim depicts a plan view of 250 which can be broadly interpreted to anticipate the claimed language).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dam wall of Yim (150 of Yim) in view of Razdan to comprise the side wings of Kim (Fig.2B of Kim).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view Razdan, and further in view of Spreitzer.
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 20 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 20.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a plurality of rounded segments integrated with a plurality of vertical segments as a unitary body.
Spreitzer teaches a dam wall that includes a plurality of rounded segments linked together as a unitary body (Fig.7A 709; ¶0049 of Spreitzer).
The term “vertical segments” is interpreted simply as straight segments because this claim can only be drawn to Figure 5b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the rounded barrier segments of Spreitzer (709 of Spreitzer) with the straight barrier taught by Yim (150 of Yim) in view of Razdan to yield a barrier having a plurality of rounded segments integrated with a plurality of vertical segments as a unitary body, similar to the shape depicted in Fig.5b of Applicant’s disclosure.
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 30, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 26 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 26.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a plurality of rounded segments integrated with a plurality of vertical segments as a unitary body.
Spreitzer teaches a dam wall that includes a plurality of rounded segments linked together as a unitary body (Fig.7A 709; ¶0049 of Spreitzer).
The term “vertical segments” is interpreted simply as straight segments because this claim can only be drawn to Figure 5b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the rounded barrier segments of Spreitzer (709 of Spreitzer) with the straight barrier taught by Yim (150 of Yim) in view of Razdan to yield a barrier having a plurality of rounded segments integrated with a plurality of vertical segments as a unitary body, similar to the shape depicted in Fig.5b of Applicant’s disclosure.
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 25 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view Razdan, and further in view of Brun.
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 20 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 20.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a plurality of separate vertical segments.
Brun teaches an IC device package (Fig.11C 1102) having a barrier comprising a plurality of separate vertical segments (Fig.11C 1019; ¶0089 of Brun).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dam wall of Yim (150 of Yim) in view of Razdan to comprise the separate vertical segments of Brun (1019 of Brun).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 31, the aforementioned combination of Yim in view of Razdan from claim 26 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 26.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the dam wall includes a plurality of separate vertical segments.
Brun teaches an IC device package (Fig.11C 1102) having a barrier comprising a plurality of separate vertical segments (Fig.11C 1019; ¶0089 of Brun).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dam wall of Yim (150 of Yim) in view of Razdan to comprise the separate vertical segments of Brun (1019 of Brun).
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the dam wall is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of inhibiting the underfill material from contacting the sensitive area (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights