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 the Claims
Group I, Species 4 is elected.
Amendment filed June 26, 2026 is acknowledged. New claim 24 has been added. Claims 9 has been cancelled. Non-Elected Species, Claims 4, 8 and 10 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 21-24 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-17 and 21-24 follows.
Specification
The newly submitted title is not descriptive. The title is
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE HAVING A LID DISPOSED OVER A SEMICONDUCTOR DIE INCLUDING A WINDOW OPENING EXPOSING AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE SEMICONDUCTOR DIE
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There does not appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “a lid disposed over a semiconductor die and on support structure, wherein the lid has a window opening penetrating through a first part of the lid and exposing at least a first portion of the semiconductor die, and a shallow window opening distanced from and beside the window opening, penetrating through a second part of the lid, and exposing a second portion of the semiconductor die, … an inner sidewall of the first part and the protrusion portion defines the window opening” (amended claim 1) (emphasis added) in the application as filed.
First, the “window opening” is defined as: “an inner sidewall of the first part and the protrusion portion defines the window opening”.
Thus, the “window opening” can expose only one portion of the semiconductor die, not two portions.
Therefore, the limitations: “the lid has a window opening penetrating through a first part of the lid and exposing at least a first portion of the semiconductor die, and a shallow window opening distanced from and beside the window opening, penetrating through a second part of the lid, and exposing a second portion of the semiconductor die,” are new matters.
Second, the limitation: “a shallow window opening distanced from and beside the window opening”. Since the “shallow opening” or “protrusion portion” is a part of the “window opening”, thus, the “shallow opening” cannot and would not be distanced from the “window opening”.
Therefore, the limitation “a shallow window opening distanced from and beside the window opening” is new matter.
Applicant must cancel the un-support new matters in response to the Office Action.
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 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 1 recites: “a lid disposed over a semiconductor die and on support structure, wherein the lid has a window opening penetrating through a first part of the lid and exposing at least a first portion of the semiconductor die, and a shallow window opening distanced from and beside the window opening, penetrating through a second part of the lid, and exposing a second portion of the semiconductor die,”
Claim 1 contravenes the disclosure. Therefore, claim 1 and all dependent claims are indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites: the semiconductor package according to claim 5, wherein a minimum width of the first opening is larger than the maximum width of the second opening.
However, according to claim 5, “the second opening is defined by the first sidewall of the protrusion”, and the “protrusion portion connected with and protruded laterally from the first part of the body portion (i.e., the first opening)”.
Thus, the minimum width of the first opening is always, or inherently, larger than the maximum width of the second opening.
Therefore, claim 6 fails to further limit claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-7, 11-17 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAGI (US. Pub. No. 2015/0059475) in view of CHANG et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0130165) both of record.
With respect to claim 1, As best understood by the Examiner, TAKAGI teaches a semiconductor package, substantially as claimed including:
a circuit board (12);
a semiconductor device (70) disposed on the circuit board;
a support structure disposed on the circuit board and surrounding the semiconductor device; and
a lid (64) disposed over a semiconductor device and on support structure, wherein the lid (64) has a window opening (90) penetrating through a first part (upper part) of the lid (64) and exposing at least a first portion of the semiconductor device (70), and a shallow window opening (lower part) distanced from and beside the window opening (90), penetrating through a second part (lower part) of the lid (64), and exposing a second portion of the semiconductor device, wherein the lid comprises a body portion (64) having the first part (upper part) and the second part (lower part) connecting with the first part (upper part), and a protrusion portion connects with and protruded laterally from the first part of the body portion, the second part (lower part) has a thickness smaller than that of the first part (upper part), the protrusion portion has an upper surface (91a), a bottom surface (64a) opposite to the upper surface (91a) and a first sidewall (92a) connecting the upper surface (91a) and the bottom surface (64a) and an inner sidewall (91b) of the first part and the protrusion portion defines the window opening (90), and
wherein the window opening (90) is configured to receive a light of an incident direction, and the incident direction is at an angle to the upper surface of the protrusion portion, so that the light hitting on the upper surface (91a) of the protrusion portion is reflected. (See FIGs. 3, 9j, 10k).
Thus, TAKAGI is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly disclosing the semiconductor device being a semiconductor die.
However, CHANG teaches a semiconductor package including:
a circuit board (10);
a semiconductor die (14) disposed on the circuit board;
a support structure disposed on the circuit board and surrounding the semiconductor die; and
a lid (12) disposed over a semiconductor die and on support structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form the semiconductor package of TAKAGI including the lid disposed over the semiconductor die as taught by CHANG so that the lid being used to encapsulate the semiconductor die or the semiconductor device thereunder, without altering the scope of either.
With respect to claim 2, the inner sidewall (91b) of the body portion (64) of TAKAGI of is a slant sidewall and there is an obtuse angle between the inner sidewall (91b) and the upper surface (91a) of the protrusion portion.
With respect to claim 3, the angle of TAKAGI is a right angle.
With respect to claim 5, the window opening (90) of TAKAGI includes a first opening (91) defined by the inner sidewall (91b) of the first part (upper part) of the body portion (64) and a second opening (92) defined by the first sidewall (92a) of the protrusion portion, a maximum width of the second opening (92) is smaller than a maximum width of the first opening (91).
With respect to claim 6, As best understood by the Examiner, a minimum width of the first opening (91) of TAKAGI is larger than the maximum width of the second opening (92).
With respect to claim 7, the first opening (91) and the second opening (92) of TAKAGI are concentric from a top view.
With respect to claim 11, As best understood by the Examiner, TAKAGI teaches a semiconductor package, substantially as claimed including:
a circuit board (12);
a semiconductor device (70) disposed on the circuit board (12);
a support structure disposed on the circuit board and surrounding the semiconductor device (70); and
a lid (64) disposed over a semiconductor device (70) and on the support structure, wherein the lid (64) has a first window opening (91 on surface 64b) in a first region (upper region) and a second window opening (92 on surface 64a) in a second region (lower region), the first window opening (91 on surface 64b) is distanced and separate from the second window opening (92 on surface 64a), and the lid (64) has a first thickness in the first region (upper region) a second thickness in the second region (lower region) that is different from the first thickness,
wherein the lid comprises a body portion (64), a first protrusion portion located at a lower portion of the first window opening (91 on surface 64b) and a second protrusion portion located at a lower portion of the second window opening (92 on surface 64a), and
wherein the first (91) and second (92) window openings are configured to receive a light of an incident direction, the incident direction is at a first angle to a first light receiving surface of the first protrusion portion and at a second angle to a second light receiving surface of the second protrusion portion, so that the light hitting on the first light receiving surface or the second light receiving surface is reflected. (See FIGs. 3, 9j, 10k).
Thus, TAKAGI is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly disclosing the semiconductor device being a semiconductor die.
However, CHANG teaches a semiconductor package including:
a circuit board (10);
a semiconductor die (14) disposed on the circuit board (10);
a support structure disposed on the circuit board (10) and surrounding the semiconductor die (14); and
a lid (12) disposed over the semiconductor die (14) and on the support structure, wherein the lid (12) has a first window opening (12h on top surface of 12) in a first region (upper region) and a second window opening (12h on bottom surface of 12) in a second region (lower region), the first window opening is distanced and separate from the second window opening. (See FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form the semiconductor package of TAKAGI including the lid disposed over the semiconductor die as taught by CHANG so that the lid being used to encapsulate the semiconductor die or the semiconductor device thereunder, without altering the scope of either.
With respect to claim 12, the first window opening (91 on surface 64b) or the second window opening (92 on surface 64a) of TAKAGI has a round shape, an oval shape, a rectangular shape, an L-like shape or a polygonal shape from a top view.
With respect to claim 13, the first window opening and the second window opening of TAKAGI have different maximum widths.
With respect to claim 14, a gap between the first region of the lid (64) and the semiconductor device of TAKAGI is different from a gap between the second region of the lid (64) and the semiconductor device.
With respect to claim 15, the first angle of TAKAGI is a right angle and the second angle is an acute angle.
With respect to claim 16, the first angle of TAKAGI is about 90 degrees and the second angle is about 90 degrees.
With respect to claim 17, the first angle of TAKAGI is larger than 45 degrees and smaller than 90 degrees and the second angle is about 90 degrees.
With respect to claim 21, TAKAGI teaches a semiconductor package, substantially as claimed including:
a circuit board (12);
a semiconductor device (70) disposed on the circuit board;
a support structure disposed on the circuit board and surrounding the semiconductor device; and
a lid (64), disposed over the semiconductor device and on the support structure, wherein the lid has a first window opening (91 on surface 64b) in a first region (upper region) and a second window opening (92 on surface 64a) in a second region (lower region), the first window opening (91 on surface 64b) is distanced and separate from the second window opening (92 on surface 64a), there is a first gap between a top surface of the semiconductor device (70) and a bottom surface (64a) of the lid (64) in the first region, and there is a second gap between the top surface of the semiconductor device (70) and the bottom surface (64a) of the lid in the second region, and the first gap is larger than the second gap,
wherein the lid comprises a body portion (64), a first protrusion portion located at a lower portion of the first window opening and a second protrusion portion located at a lower portion of the second window opening, and
wherein the first and second window openings are configured to receive a light of an incident direction, and a projection of the first window opening and a projection of the second window opening are overlapped with a span of the semiconductor device, so that the light passing through the first window opening or the second window opening is hitting on the top surface of the semiconductor device and reflected. (See FIGs. 3, 9j, 10k).
Thus, TAKAGI is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly disclosing the semiconductor device being a semiconductor die.
However, CHANG teaches a semiconductor package including:
a circuit board (10);
a semiconductor die (14) disposed on the circuit board (10);
a support structure disposed on the circuit board (10) and surrounding the semiconductor die (14); and
a lid (12) disposed over the semiconductor die (14) and on the support structure, wherein the lid (12) has a first window opening (12h on top surface of 12) in a first region (upper region) and a second window opening (12h on bottom surface of 12) in a second region (lower region), the first window opening is distanced and separate from the second window opening. (See FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form the semiconductor package of TAKAGI including the lid disposed over the semiconductor die as taught by CHANG so that the lid being used to encapsulate the semiconductor die or the semiconductor device thereunder, without altering the scope of either.
With respect to claim 22, the semiconductor package of TAKAGI further comprising a sealant component (94) disposed within at least one of the first window opening and the second window opening.
With respect to claim 23, the first light receiving surface, the second light receiving surface and the top surface of the semiconductor structure (die) of TAKAGI are substantially perpendicular to the incidence direction.
With respect to claim 24, the projection of the first window opening of TAKAGI is non-overlapping with the projection of the second window opening, the first window opening extending through the lid (64) of a first thickness in the first region, the second window opening extending through the lid of a second thickness in the second region, and the first thickness is different from the second thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH D MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1710 (Email: Anh.Mai2@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-4:00PM.
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, Sue A Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/ANH D MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights