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 .
This OA is in response to the claims filled on 11/21/2025 that has been entered, wherein claims 1-13, 16-18 and 20-23 are pending and claim 14-15 and 19 are canceled.
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: Semiconductor device package with component side free from contact with protective element.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 presently recites the claim limitation of “the protective element has a portion disposed between a lower surface of the first dam and an upper surface of the second dam”. Drawing 5A does not depict the protective element 40 with a portion disposed between a lower surface of the first dam 80D and an upper surface of the second dam 80C. Further the specification states “the blocking structures 80C and 80D may collaboratively prevent the material of the protective element 40 (e.g., a protective material) from overflowing into the region V1 during manufacture of the semiconductor device package 2E”(¶0127) and “ the excess material may flow and be stopped by the wall structure of the blocking structures 80C and 80D”. In light of the description in the specification it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the protective element has a portion disposed between a lower surface of the first dam and an upper surface of the second dam, since the first dam and the second dam act to stop the follow of the protective element.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and inherits it deficiencies.
The rejection of claims 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicants amendment of 11/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2022/0413210 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a package(Fig. 1), comprising:
a carrier(110);
a component(130) disposed over the carrier(110) and having a side surface(135) configured for optically coupling(¶0043); and
a first protective element(underfill materials of 112, ¶0040) disposed between the carrier(110) and the component(130),
wherein the side surface(135) of the component(130) is free from being in contact with the first protective element(underfill materials of 112, ¶0040), wherein the first protective element(underfill materials of 112, ¶0040) has a first edge(edge along the y direction along the side opposite 135, please see examiner annotated Fig. 1B) and a plurality of second edges(edges along x direction, please see examiner annotated Fig. 1B) surrounding the first edge(edge along the y direction along the side opposite 135) from a top view perspective, and wherein the first edge(edge along the y direction along the side opposite 135) is farther away from the side surface(135) than the second edges(please see examiner annotated Fig. 1B).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0413210 A1) of record in view of Kuo et al. (US 2024/0170437.
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches the package of claim 1, but is not relied on to teach a blocking structure region between the component and the carrier and comprising a trench and a dam contacting the first protective element(underfill materials of 112, ¶0040) and disposed extending parallel with each other.
Kuo teaches a package(Fig. 2) comprising a blocking structure region between the component(11) and the carrier(10) and comprising a trench(10t, ¶0035) and a dam(40) contacting the first protective element(30, ¶0039) and disposed extending parallel with each other(Fig. 2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify of Liu, to include a blocking structure region between the component and the carrier and comprising a trench and a dam contacting the first protective element and disposed extending parallel with each other, as taught by Kuo, in order to reduce a migration of the first protective element and to destroy the capillary action by directing the flow of the protective element(¶0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-8 and 21-22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 2, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “the first edge is aligned with the optical fiber and the second edges are misaligned with the optical fiber”.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and inherits it’s allowable subject matter.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “the first edge continues with the second edges and wherein the first edge has a concave shape and the second edges have convex.”
Regarding dependent claim 5, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “a plurality of first interconnection elements encapsulated by the first protective element and a plurality of second interconnection elements, none of which is encapsulated by the first protective element, wherein the second edges are under a first region of the component, wherein the first region is between the side surface of the component and a second region of the component, and the plurality of first interconnection elements are under the second region of the component and the plurality of second interconnection elements are under the first region of the component.”
Claims 21 and 22 depend on claim 5 and inherit it’s allowable subject matter.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “he dam is closer to the side surface than the trench and has a lateral surface covered by the first protective element and an upper surface partially covered by the first protective element.”
Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and inherits it’s allowable subject matter.
Claims 9-13, 16-18, 20 and 23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 9, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “a first dam in contact with a bottom surface of the component and a second dam in contact with an upper surface of the carrier, wherein the bottom surface faces the upper surface.”
Claims 10-13 and 23 depend on claim 9 and inherit it’s allowable subject matter.
Regarding independent claim 16, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “a third region, surrounding the second region and accommodating a first dummy die comprising a first portion covered by the protective element and a second portion exposed by the protective element”.
Claims 17-18 and 20 depend on claim 16 and inherit it’s allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the 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 LAURA DYKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-5 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LAURA M DYKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892