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
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-15 are cancelled. Claims 1-8 are examined on the merits.
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. It is suggested that the title be amended to include a phrase directed to the warp countering structure.
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.
Claims 1-3 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 20210013134 A1 to Derai et al. (hereinafter “Derai”).
Regarding claim 1, Derai teaches a method, comprising:
attaching a semiconductor die (12; fig. 4b) [0054] on a substrate (leadframe 14; fig. 4b) [0054];
molding an insulating encapsulation (insulating package 16a; fig. 4c) [0054] of laser direct structuring (LDS) material [0054] onto the substrate (14) and the semiconductor die (12), wherein the insulating encapsulation of LDS material (16a) has, opposite (other side) the substrate (14), a front surface (vertically top surface) comprising a first portion (area vertically over 12, hereinafter “first portion”) and a second portion (area vertically over portions between dies 12, hereinafter “second portion”);
applying laser direct structuring processing [0049] & [0114] to the first portion (first portion) of the front surface (top) to structure (form) therein electrically conductive formations (26; fig. 4e) [0071] comprising vias (vias of passageways 24; fig. 4h) [0070] and electrically conductive lines (26; fig. 4h) [0071] extending over the first portion (first portion) of the front surface (top) and connecting to said semiconductor die (12);
applying laser direct structuring processing [0049] & [0114] to the second portion (second portion) of the front surface (top) to structure (form the pattern for) therein a reinforcing warp-countering (at least one warping force meets resistance between 24) structure (portion near center of region between conductive passageways 24; fig. 4h) [0070] extending over the second portion (second portion) of the front surface (top) of the encapsulation of LDS material (16a); and
leaving exempt from laser direct structuring processing separation gaps (portions of 16a near the edge of region between conductive passageways 24; fig. 4h) [0070] between the first portion (first portion) and the second portion (second portion) of the front surface (top) of the encapsulation of LDS material (16a);
wherein said reinforcing warp-countering structure (center between 24) is electrically insulated (because of electrically insulating material 16a in the separation gaps) from said electrically conductive lines (26) by LDS material (material of 16a) of said encapsulation (16a) left exempt from laser direct structuring processing [0049] & [0114] at said separation gaps (edge of material between 24).
To further clarify, regarding the interpretation of the reinforcing warp-countering structure and the separation gaps, the interpretation taken above is within the possible scope of the claims because the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim allows for the separation gaps and the reinforcing warp-countering structure to comprise the same material. It is suggested that the Applicant amend these two terms in a manner which distinguishes them from each other. Doing so, at least, in a manner which requires different materials between the two structures, would overcome the above rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Derai teaches the method of any claim 1, wherein at least one region of the second portion (second portion) of the front surface (top) of the encapsulation of LDS material (16a) includes the reinforcing warp-countering (at least one warping force meets resistance between 22) structure (structure between 22 and above 12 near the center; fig. 4h) [0070] interdigitated (alternating) with the electrically conductive lines (26) extending over the first portion (first portion) of the front surface (top) of the encapsulation of LDS material (16a).
The Examiner notes that claim 2 recites “the method of any claim 1.” While this is not an objectionable instance of claim language, because there is only 1 claim 1, the Examiner notes this phrase, as the Applicant may want to change the phrase for ease of reading.
Regarding claim 3, Derai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said reinforcing warp-countering structure (center between 24) comprises a plate-like (having a general flat surface on at least one surface thereof) structure (fig. 4h).
Regarding claim 7, Derai teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising molding a further encapsulation (16b; fig. 4h) [0075] on the front surface (top) of the encapsulation of LDS material (16a), wherein the reinforcing warp-countering structure (center between 24) is sandwiched between the encapsulation of LDS material (16a) and the further encapsulation molded thereon (16b).
Regarding claim 8, Derai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein applying laser direct structuring processing to the encapsulation of LDS material (16) comprises:
applying laser beam energy [0094] to the encapsulation of LDS material (16) to selectively structure therein laser-structured locations (locations of 26); and
providing electrically conductive material at the laser-structured locations by one of.
electroless deposition (metallization) [0129] of electrically conductive material (26);
electrolytic deposition (metallization) [0129] of electrically conductive material (26); and
laser-induced forward transfer, LIFT of electrically conductive material.
To further clarify, Derai requires that the conductive material be formed through metallization. This process is known in the art and would require a process which would be one of electroless or electrolytic, thus reading on the claim. In other words, a metallization which uses an electrolyte or doesn’t will read on virtually every technique used in metallization.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derai in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 20150021754 A1 to Lin et al. (herainfter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 4, Derai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said reinforcing warp-countering structure comprises a meshed structure.
Lin et al., however, teaches a reinforcing warp countering structure (heat spreader 340; fig. 14a-d) [0105] comprising a meshed structure [0108].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of Derai to comprise a meshed structure to modify the CTE of the structure, resulting in improved warpage behavior as taught by Lin [0108].
Regarding claim 5, Derai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said reinforcing warp-countering structure comprises stiffening ribs.
Lin, however, teaches reinforcing warp-countering structures (combination cover 300; fig. 12j) [0095] comprising stiffeners (290; fig. 12j) [0094].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of Derai to comprise a stiffener to increase package strength and heat dissipation as taught by Lin [0097].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 20210050226 A1 to Derai et al. (hereinafter “Derai 226”).
Regarding claim 6, Derai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reinforcing warp-countering structure has a thickness between about 10 and about 500 microns.
Derai 226, however, teaches a reinforcing warp-countering structure (LDS resin between package 12; fig. 4h) [0029] has a thickness between about 10 and about 500 microns [0029].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of Derai to comprise a thickness between 10 and 500 microns to minimize the size of the device as taught by Derai 226 [0029].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN EDWARD CUTLER whose telephone number is (703)756-5415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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, Drew Richards can be reached on (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.
/ETHAN EDWARD CUTLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights