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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 November 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking. See Page(s) 1-2.
The reference characters are improperly and unnecessarily underlined and are missing required lead lines. Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(p(1)), 1.84(p(3)), and 1.84(q). See Figure(s) 1 and 3-4.
The drawings make improper use of shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. Solid black or gray shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(m) and 1.84(h(3)). See Figure(s) 4.
The drawings do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: semiconductor die 2 . Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). See Figure 2.
The drawings contain improper sectional views and/or sectional view references. The entire plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(h(3)). See Figure(s) 2.
The drawings contain partial, magnified, and/or perspective views lacking an appropriate frame of reference required to facilitate the Examiner’s understanding of the views. The views’ origin and scope pertaining to the overall invention have not been clearly set forth; and, such information is necessary to ascertain the holistic nature of the invention and the location of various features and their relationship to one another. The accompanying description of Figure 2 (“The semiconductor dies 2 are not to be seen, only the vertical pins extending from the semiconductor dies 2 in the direction of the opposing side of the housing 3 are to be seen in FIG. 2. The housing 3 is open on the upper side of the representation of FIG. 2, but comprises a circumferential edge which serves as a mounting surface for the substrate.” [0020]) dictates that the die are present but not shown, there are pins without a reference number and not shown in other figures (Figure 4 does not have pins), and that the depiction of the housing is a modified view of a housing with a different structure than that which is shown. Furthermore, it appears that the substrate consists of a plane. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(h(2)). See Figure(s) 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Method for Fabricating a Semiconductor Package by Using a Reactive Tape as a Lid Seal and Curing Said Reactive Tape with an Encapsulation
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears to be a translation. The surface energy should be at least 34 but it’s reduced to 34?.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites the limitation of “essentially one and the same temperature”. The term "essentially" is a relative term which renders these claims indefinite. The term "essentially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term essentially is defined as “in a fundamental or basic way”. The term “essentially” modifies a target, implicitly requiring boundaries at some maximum value above said target and at some minimum value below said target beyond which one is no longer within the “essentially” range. As the Applicant has not provided a definition for these boundaries in the originally filed claims or the originally filed specification, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01%, 0.1%, 1%, 10%, etc.) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. Therefore the term is subjective and therefore unclear, and so the claims are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the same temperature" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim from which it depends, claim 3, only includes the limitation of “one and the same temperature”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation a polymer, and the claim also recites an amorphous polymer, a semicrystalline polymer, a biopolymer, a silicone, and a gel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "one or both of the surfaces" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim from which it depends, claim 1, only includes the limitation of “partial surfaces of one or both of the substrate and the housing”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the surface energy" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what surface energy is reduced.
Claim 9 recites “performing the surface treatment by one or more of cleaning, milling, or exposing the one or both of the surfaces of the substrate and the housing to a plasma” and is it is unclear if the limitation requires the cleaning or milling to be performed on the one or both of the surfaces of the substrate and the housing or if that only applies to the exposing to a plasma.
Claim 10 recites “both sides” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is presumed that the solid glue layer comprises a first and second side that are both covered with protective layers, but the claim language is not clear what sides of what element are covered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Humenik et al. (U.S. 2011/0180923).
Regarding Claim 1, Humenik et al., Figures 1a and 2, disclose a method for fabricating a semiconductor device module, the method comprising:
providing a substrate comprising one or more semiconductor dies disposed thereon (substrate 21, die 11);
providing a housing (housing 41);
applying a reactive tape on partial surfaces of one or both of the substrate and the housing (reactive tape 71);
mounting the housing onto the substrate (housing 41, substrate 21);
filling in a potting material into an interior of the housing (potting material 111/112); and
curing the potting material and the reactive tape ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 2, Humenik et al., Figures 1a and 2, further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the reactive tape is based on an epoxy material ([0018]).
Regarding Claim 3, Humenik et al., Figures 1a and 2, further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a material of the potting material and a material of the reactive tape are selected such that the potting material and the reactive tape start to react at essentially one and the same temperature during the curing ([0018], [0020], and [0021]).
Regarding Claim 5, Humenik et al., Figures 1a and 2, further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the potting material comprises a viscoelastic material ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 6, Humenik et al., Figures 1a and 2, further disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the viscoelastic material comprises one or more of a polymer, an amorphous polymer, a semicrystalline polymer, a biopolymer, a silicone, and a gel ([0020]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humenik et al. (U.S. 2011/0180923) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bhagwagar et al. (U.S. 2016/0197025).
Regarding Claim 4, Humenik et al., does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the temperature is in a range from 90°C to 120°C. In the same field of endeavor, Bhagwagar et al. discloses curing a potting material and reactive tape that comprise a same epoxy silicone material and that the reactive temperature during curing is in a range from 90°C to 120°C (Bhagwagar et al., potting material 104/106, reactive tape 102, Figure 1, [0065-0070]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the temperature be in a range from 90°C to 120°C in Humenik et al. in view of Bhagwagar et al. in order to reduce the amount of fabrication equipment and to mitigate warpage (Bhagwagar et al., [0119]).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humenik et al. (U.S. 2011/0180923) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. 2020/0335479).
Regarding Claim 7, Humenik et al. does not explicitly disclose performing a surface treatment of one or both of the surfaces of the substrate and the housing before applying the reactive tape. In the same field of endeavor, Li et al. discloses performing a surface treatment of a substrate before applying reactive tape (Li et al., substrate 118, [0028], [0030], [0034]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a surface treatment on one or both of the surfaces of the substrate and housing before applying the reactive tape in Fujita in view of Li et al. in order to more easily form the potting material on the substrate (Li et al., [0028])
Regarding Claim 9, Humenik et al. in view of Li et al., further disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising: performing the surface treatment by one or more of cleaning, milling, or exposing the one or both of the surfaces of the substrate and the housing to a plasma (Li et al., [0028], [0030], [0034]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humenik et al. (U.S. 2011/0180923) in view of Li et al. (U.S. 2020/0335479) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (U.S. 2004/0233642).
Regarding Claim 8, Humenik et al. in view of Li et al. do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising: performing the surface treatment such that the surface energy is reduced below a value of 35 mN/m. In the same field of endeavor, Ito et al. discloses a contact surface having a surface energy value below 35 mN/m (Ito et al., [0009],[0010]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the surface treatment such that the surface energy is reduces below a value of 35 mN/m in Humenik et al. in view of Li et al., further in view of Ito et al. in order to maintain heat dissipation performance (Ito et al., [0010]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humenik et al. (U.S. 2011/0180923) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2020/0392380).
Regarding Claim 10, Humenik et al. does not explicitly disclose disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the reactive tape comprises a solid glue layer which is covered with protective layers on both sides. In the same field of endeavor, Chen et al. discloses a reactive tape comprising a solid glue layer which is covered with protective layers on both sides joining a substrate to another component (Chen et al., Figure 3, reactive tape 304/306/302, substrate 1b, component 1a). 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 a reactive tape comprising a solid glue layer which is covered with protective layers on both sides in Humenik et al. in view of Chen et al. in order to firmly bond together components and customize adhesive properties (Chen et al., [0024]).
Regarding Claim 11, Humenik et al. in view of Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the solid glue layer is in a range from 0.5mm to 1.5mm. Chen et al. discloses wherein a thickness of the solid glue layer is 0.25mm (Chen et al., [0012]) and further disclose that the thickness of the solid glue layer is chosen to accommodate for taller gaps needing to bridged by the reactive tape (Chen et al., [0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized thickness of the solid glue layer to be a result effective variable affecting ability of the reactive tape to bridge gaps between substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Humenik et al. in view of Chen et al. to form the thickness of the soldi glue layer within the claimed range in order to accommodate for taller gaps needing to be bridged by the reactive tape and customize adhesive properties (Chen et al., [0012] and [0024]), and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Abbigale Boyle whose telephone number is 571-270-7919. The Examiner can normally be reached from 11 A.M to 7 P.M., Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith, can be reached at 571-272-2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance form a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Abbigale Boyle
Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ABBIGALE A BOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights