Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on June 24th, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 11-14, “Remarks”) that none of the cited references teach the limitations presented in amended Claims 1 and 18.
However, as seen below, Claim 1 is now rejected by the combination of Benzel, Uchiyama, and Murali. Claim 18 is rejected by the combination of Benzel, Lutz, Yamaguchi, and Murali.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzel et al. (2011/0163396 A1; hereinafter Benzel) in view of another embodiment of Benzel, Murali et al. (2017/0057810 A1; hereinafter Murali), and Uchiyama (2018/0301408 A1; hereinafter Uchiyama).
Regarding Claim 1, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches a method for fabricating a strain sensing film ([0070], SC1’’’), comprising:
thinning ([0070]) a semiconductor wafer ([0070], W1’’) to form a semiconductor film ([0070], W1’’ thinned to PL, see fig. 6), [];
attaching a die attach film ([0070], SF) onto the semiconductor film (W1’’);
dicing ([0070], sawing) the resulting semiconductor film (W1’’) attached ([0058], dicing tape is used during separation) with the die attach film (SF) to form a plurality of independent strain films ([0070], SC1’’’, SC2’’’);
transferring the plurality of independent strain films (SC1’’’, SC2’’’) to a substrate ([0044]-[0045], [0072], SC1’’’ and SC2’’’ are connected to the substrates SS2’’’ and SS3’’’ in a similar manner as seen in fig. 3b), and completely attaching the plurality of independent strain films (SC1’’’, SC2’’’) to the substrate (SS2’’’, SS3’’’);
Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach performing polishing or plasma etching on the semiconductor film to reduce surface stress and reduce risk of subsequent damage to the semiconductor film. Benzel does teach that the semiconductor wafer (W1’’) is thinned down to a polishing line ([0066], [0070], PL).
However, Uchiyama (fig. 11) teaches performing polishing ([0052]) or plasma etching on the semiconductor film ([0052], substrate 100 may be polished and thinned) to reduce surface stress ([0052]) and reduce risk of subsequent damage to the semiconductor film. Uchiyama also teaches that polishing reduces stress in upcoming processes ([0052]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the polishing of Uchiyama to reduce stress.
The first embodiment of Benzel doesn’t teach electrically connecting a metal pad of each of the plurality of independent strain films with a corresponding metal pad of the substrate.
However, another embodiment of Benzel (fig. 7) teaches electrically connecting a metal pad ([0068], CC1’’, CC2’’) of each of the plurality of independent strain films ([0068], SC1’’, SC2’’) with a corresponding metal pad ([0068], printed conductors on SS2, indicated by dashed lines, see fig. 7) of the substrate ([0068], SS2). Benzel also teaches that this approach replaces the need for back-side through contacting of the strain films ([0068]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try alternative contacts for the strain films and yielded the predictable results of electrically connecting to the strain films.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce alternative contacts since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Benzel doesn’t teach packaging the plurality of the independent strain films.
However, Murali (figs. 7A-B) teaches packaging ([0022], 114) the plurality of the independent strain films ([0035], strain sensors may be implanted on the MEMS die, for example, 702). Murali also teaches that packaging protects the wire-bond and the package stack from the environment ([0022]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the die attach film and the packaging of Murali to facilitate the attachment of package subcomponents and to protect the package subcomponents from the environment.
Regarding Claim 4, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor film (W1’’) comprises at least one of a silicon film ([0033], silicon wafer), a germanium film, a gallium arsenide film, a gallium nitride film, a silicon carbide film, a zinc sulfide film, a zinc oxide film, or any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 8, Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein that the semiconductor wafer comprises at least one temperature sensor.
However, Murali teaches that the semiconductor wafer (MEMS die) comprises at least one temperature sensor ([0030]). Murali also teaches that a temperature sensor can be included to compensate for the temperature coefficient of sensitivity of the strain sensing elements ([0030]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the temperature sensor of Murali to compensate for the temperature coefficient of sensitivity of the strain sensing elements.
Regarding Claim 9, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor wafer (W1’’) comprises at least two strain sensing components ([0070], P); and one of the at least two strain sensing components (left P, see fig. 8a) is arranged in a direction different (left P is arranged horizontally from right P, see fig. 8a) from that of at least one other strain sensing component (right P, see fig. 8a).
Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach that the strain sensing component is a strain sensing resistor. Benzel does teach that strain sensing components are piezosensitive ([0070]).
However, Murali (fig. 7B) teaches that the strain sensing component is a strain sensing resistor ([0004]). Murali also teaches that a strain sensor can be a piezo-resistor, a piezo-junction, or a piezo-electric ([0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try and use a strain sensing resistor as a strain sensing component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a strain sensing resistor as a strain sensing component since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions as indicated by Murali. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor wafer (W1’’) comprises at least two strain sensing components ([0070], P).
Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach that the strain sensing component is a strain sensing resistor. Benzel does teach that strain sensing components are piezosensitive ([0070]).
However, Murali (fig. 7B) teaches that the strain sensing component is a strain sensing resistor ([0004]). Murali also teaches that a strain sensor can be a piezo-resistor, a piezo-junction, or a piezo-electric ([0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try and use a strain sensing resistor as a strain sensing component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a strain sensing resistor as a strain sensing component since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions as indicated by Murali. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Murali (fig. 7B) further teaches that one of the at least two strain sensing resistors (702) is perpendicular (see fig. 7B) to at least one other strain sensing resistor (702).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzel, Uchiyama, and Murali as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Denison et al. (2008/0081958 A1; hereinafter Denison).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing signal test on binding wires after the electrically connecting of the metal pad of each of the plurality of independent strain films with the corresponding metal pad or performing functional test on the plurality of the independent strain films after the packaging of the plurality of independent strain films.
However, Denison (fig. 6) teaches performing signal test ([0051], test signal) on binding wires ([0052], tests wire bonds) after the electrically connecting of the metal pad of each of the plurality of independent strain films ([0044], sensor 4 may be a strain gauge) with the corresponding metal pad ([0052], sensor 4 is connected to circuitry 6 prior to testing) or performing functional test ([0052], tests sensor 4) on the plurality of the independent strain films (4) after the packaging of the plurality of independent strain films ([0047], sensor 4 is packaged into a housing onto a substrate). Denison also teaches that the signal and function test can determine if the sensor device and the interconnections are fully functional ([0052]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the signal and functional test of Denison to determine the functionality of the sensor device and the interconnections.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzel, Uchiyama, and Murali as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lutz et al. (2008/0290494 A1; hereinafter Lutz).
Regarding Claim 5, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, before thinning semiconductor wafer (W1’’), fabricating an integrated circuit ([0070], C1’’’, C2’’’) within the semiconductor wafer (W1’’).
However, Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach fabricating an integrated circuit within the semiconductor wafer by performing processes comprising: doping, etching, and filling on one side of the semiconductor wafer.
However, Lutz (fig. 4B) teaches fabricating an integrated circuit ([0087], any of the mechanical structures found within 24c) within the semiconductor wafer ([0087], 24c) by performing processes comprising: doping, etching, and filling ([0087]) on one side of the semiconductor wafer (24c). Lutz also teaches that techniques such as deposition, lithography, etching, and doping are all well-known techniques for forming integrated circuit components ([0087]) and may be applied to form integrated circuit components that include the components ([0074], mechanical structures may be components of strain sensors) taught by Benzel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the well-known technique of etching as described by Lutz in the formation of the integrated circuit components of Benzel.
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzel, Uchiyama, and Murali as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohta et al. (2008/0079531 A1; hereinafter Ohta).
Regarding Claim 6, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor wafer (W1’’) comprises at least two strain sensing components ([0070], P).
Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach that the strain sensing component is a strain sensing resistor. Benzel does teach that strain sensing components are piezosensitive ([0070]).
However, Murali (fig. 7B) teaches that the strain sensing component is a strain sensing resistor ([0004]). Murali also teaches that a strain sensor can be a piezo-resistor, a piezo-junction, or a piezo-electric ([0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try and use a strain sensing resistor as a strain sensing component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a strain sensing resistor as a strain sensing component since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions as indicated by Murali. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additionally, Benzel and Murali don’t explicitly teach that one of the at least two strain sensing resistors responds differently to a same strain with respect to at least one other strain sensing resistor.
However, Ohta (fig. 2) teaches that one of the at least two strain sensing resistors ([0034], 4a) responds differently to a same strain ([0034], 4a has high sensitivity to strain in the current direction while 4b has a very low sensitivity to strain in any direction) with respect to at least one other strain sensing resistor ([0034], 4b). Ohta also teaches that this arrangement of resistors makes it capable of properly detecting the strain in the current direction ([0035]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the different resistors of Ohta to properly detect the strain in the current direction.
Regarding Claim 7, Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach the method of claim 6, wherein a signal processing circuit; and the signal processing circuit is in connection with the at least two strain sensing resistors.
However, Murali (fig. 1B) teaches a signal processing circuit ([0021], dedicated strain IC); and the signal processing circuit (strain IC) is in connection with the at least two strain sensing resistors ([0021], 106). Murali teaches that the dedicated strain IC detects and processes the strain signals ([0021]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the signal processing circuit of Murali to detect and process the strain signals.
Regarding Claim 10, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor wafer (W1’’) comprises at least two strain sensing components ([0070], P).
Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach that the strain sensing component is a strain sensing resistor. Benzel does teach that strain sensing components are piezosensitive ([0070]).
However, Murali (fig. 7B) teaches that the strain sensing component is a strain sensing resistor ([0004]). Murali also teaches that a strain sensor can be a piezo-resistor, a piezo-junction, or a piezo-electric ([0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try and use a strain sensing resistor as a strain sensing component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a strain sensing resistor as a strain sensing component since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions as indicated by Murali. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Benzel and Murali don’t explicitly teach one of the at least two strain sensing resistors has a sensitivity coefficient different from that of at least one other strain sensing resistor.
However, Ohta (fig. 2) teaches that one of the at least two strain sensing resistors ([0034], 4a) a sensitivity coefficient different ([0034], 4a has high sensitivity to strain in the current direction while 4b has a very low sensitivity to strain in any direction) from that of at least one other strain sensing resistor ([0034], 4b). Ohta also teaches that this arrangement of resistors makes it capable of properly detecting the strain in the current direction ([0035]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the different resistors of Ohta to properly detect the strain in the current direction.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzel, Uchiyama, and Murali as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Andry et al. (2018/0257926 A1; hereinafter Andry).
Regarding Claims 12-17, Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor film has a thickness of smaller than or equal to 70 µm, 50 µm, 30 µm, 25 µm, 20 µm, or 15 µm, respectively.
However, Andry (fig. 2D) teaches that the semiconductor film ([0071], 200) has a thickness of smaller than or equal to 70 µm, 50 µm, 30 µm, 25 µm, 20 µm, or 15 µm ([0071], thickness after thinning can be 1 µm - 10 µm) , respectively. Andry also teaches that such a thickness is sufficiently thin to withstand mechanical deformation and ensure sufficient contact ([0064]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the thickness of the semiconductor film of Andry to form a film that can withstand mechanical deformation.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzel in view of Lutz, Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0313866 A1; hereinafter Yamaguchi), another embodiment of Benzel, and Murali.
Regarding Claim 18, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches a method for fabricating a strain sensing film ([0070], SC1’’’), comprising:
thinning ([0070]) a semiconductor wafer ([0070], W1’’) to form a semiconductor film ([0070], W1’’ thinned to PL, see fig. 6),
dicing ([0070], sawing) the semiconductor film (W1’’) to form a plurality of independent strain films ([0070], SC1’’’, SC2’’’); []
transferring the plurality of independent strain films (SC1’’’, SC2’’’) to a substrate ([0070], SS2’’’, SS3’’’), and completely attaching the plurality of independent strain films (SC1’’’, SC2’’’) to the substrate (SS2’’’, SS3’’’);
Benzel doesn’t explicitly teach applying a glue onto a substrate.
However, Lutz (fig. 32B) teaches applying a glue ([0202], 80) onto a substrate ([0202], 78). Lutz also teaches that die attach materials may also include solder, bonding material, or adhesive ([0202]) for the connection of a strain sensor ([0074], 12) to a substrate (78). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try and use glue as a means of connecting a strain sensor to a substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention glue as a means of connecting a strain sensor to a substrate since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions as indicated by Lutz. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Benzel and Lutz also don’t teach a Young’s modulus of the glue after curing is greater than 100 MPa.
However, Yamaguchi (fig. 12B) teaches a Young’s modulus of the glue ([0129], 41) after curing is greater than 100 MPa ([0129], greater than or equal to 1 GPa). Yamaguchi also teaches that this Young’s modulus allows the adhesive to bear applied external forces.
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel and Lutz to include the glue of Yamaguchi to allow the adhesive to bear applied external forces.
The first embodiment of Benzel doesn’t teach electrically connecting a metal pad of each of the plurality of independent strain films with a corresponding metal pad of the substrate.
However, another embodiment of Benzel (fig. 7) teaches electrically connecting a metal pad ([0068], CC1’’, CC2’’) of each of the plurality of independent strain films ([0068], SC1’’, SC2’’) with a corresponding metal pad ([0068], printed conductors on SS2, indicated by dashed lines, see fig. 7) of the substrate ([0068], SS2). Benzel also teaches that this approach replaces the need for back-side through contacting of the strain films ([0068]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try alternative contacts for the strain films and yielded the predictable results of electrically connecting to the strain films.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce alternative contacts since this limitation is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions. This is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additionally, Benzel doesn’t teach packaging the plurality of the independent strain films.
However, Murali (fig. 1C) teaches packaging ([0022], 114) the plurality of the independent strain films ([0035], strain sensors may be implanted on the MEMS die, for example, 702). Murali also teaches that packaging protects the wire-bond and the package stack from the environment ([0022]).
Therefore, 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 strain sensor of Benzel to include the packaging of Murali to protect the package subcomponents from the environment.
Regarding Claim 19, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches a strain sensing film ([0070], SC1’’’), wherein the strain sensing film (SC1’’’) is packaged by the method of claim 1 (see rejection for Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Benzel (figs. 3b and 8a-b) teaches a pressure sensor ([0036], high-pressure sensor), comprising the strain sensing film (SC1’’’) of claim 19 (see rejection for Claim 19).
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 ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 November 4, 2025