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 .
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 21-27 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a second portion" in both lines 2 and 4. It is unclear if the second recitation of a second portion refers to the same second portion as the first recitation or not. For purposes of examination, it is assumed they refer to the same portion. Claims 22-27 depend from claim 21 and therefore inherit the deficiency of claim 21 and are rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suk et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0051607).
Regarding claim 1, Suk teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a die (Fig. 6A, die 100), encapsulated by an encapsulant (encapsulant 200); and
a redistribution layer (RDL) structure (RDL structure 300) over the encapsulant, comprising a first polymer layer (first polymer layer 380);
a second polymer layer (second polymer layer 370) on the first polymer layer, wherein a transmittance of the second polymer layer is smaller than a transmittance of the first polymer layer (paragraph [0056]; and
a UBM layer (UBM 390/410), disposed over and electrically connected to the RDL structure, wherein the UBM layer is disposed in the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 3, Suk teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer comprise a same polymer (see paragraph [0037] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Suk teaches the semiconductor device of claim 3, wherein the second polymer layer further comprise carbon black (see paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Suk teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a top surface of the second polymer layer has a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 6A, protrusions at each UBM 390).
Regarding claim 6, Suk teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a top surface of the UBM layer is higher than a top surface of the second polymer layer (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 7, Suk teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the UBM layer has a first portion disposed in the first polymer layer (Fig. 6A, portion in layer 380) and a second portion disposed in the second polymer layer and in direct contact with the first portion (Fig. 6A, portion in layer 370).
Claims 8-13, 21-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0165634).
Regarding claim 8, Kang teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a die (Fig. 1, die 120), encapsulated by an encapsulant (encapsulant 130);
a RDL structure (RDL structure 150) over the encapsulant, comprising a first polymer layer (first polymer 151);
a UBM layer (UBM layer 153), electrically connected to the RDL structure and protruded from the first polymer layer (Fig. 1);
a second polymer layer (second polymer layer LA1/LA2) over the RDL structure (Fig. 1); and
a laser mark (laser mark SP/MP) in the second polymer layer, wherein a top surface of a portion of the second polymer layer is substantially coplanar with a top surface of a portion of the first polymer layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 8, wherein a transmittance of the second polymer layer is smaller than a transmittance of the first polymer layer (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 8, further comprising a plurality of dielectric protrusions at the top surface of the first polymer layer (see protrusions at edges of LA1 and at 150h).
Regarding claim 11, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 10, wherein a material of the dielectric protrusions is the same as a material of the second polymer layer (paragraph [0074]-[0075], material of LA1/LA2 and PA of 150 is the same).
Regarding claim 12, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 10, wherein the dielectric protrusions are portions of the first polymer layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 8, wherein the second polymer layer is in direct contact with the first polymer layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Kang teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a RDL structure (Fig. 1, RDL 150), comprising a first portion (peripheral section) and a second portion (section at LA1/LA2);
a first polymer layer (first polymer 151 at PA), covering the first portion of the RDL structure;
a second polymer layer (second polymer LA1/LA2), covering a second portion of the RDL structure (Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the second polymer layer covers the first polymer layer (Fig. 1), and a transmittance of the second polymer layer is smaller than a transmittance of the first polymer layer (paragraph [0037]);
a UBM layer (UBM 153) in the first polymer layer (Fig. 1); and
a die (die 120), bonded to the RDL structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 21, wherein a top surface of the second polymer layer covering the second portion of the RDL structure is substantially coplanar with a top surface of the portion of the second polymer layer covering the first polymer layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 21, wherein a top surface of the second polymer layer covering the second portion of the RDL structure is substantially coplanar with a top surface of the first polymer layer (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 21, wherein the portion of the second polymer layer comprises patterns exposing the first polymer layer (see PA part, which is exposed from the LA1/LA2 part), and the exposed first polymer layer has a rough surface (“rough surface” is not defined, and therefore the surface of PA, which inherently cannot have a perfectly smooth surface, is considered a “rough surface”).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suk.
Regarding claim 2, Suk teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the transmittance of the second polymer layer is substantially equal to or larger than 50%, and the transmittance of the first polymer layer is substantially equal to or larger than 90%.
However, the exact transmittance values at any given wavelength or radiation type are not critical and could have been optimized through routine experimentation or calculation based on the materials used, marking pattern size and complexity and other similar factors. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Fan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0049123).
Regarding claim 24, Kang teaches the semiconductor device of claim 21, wherein the UBM layer comprises a conductive layer (conductive layer 153), and the conductive layer comprises a bottom portion in the first polymer layer (Fig. 1) and a top portion exposed by the seed layer (top surface is exposed).
Kang does not specifically teach a seed layer, the conductive layer being surrounded by the seed layer. However, Fan teaches a similar package in which the UBM has a seed layer (Fig. 5, layer SB), surrounding a conductive layer with the top portion exposed (Fig. 5, layer MB). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the package if Kang could have included a seed layer because it is a well known method of forming conductive fills by creating a thin layer to which more rapid fill methods can bind to.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Fan, further in view of Olson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0005819).
Regarding claim 25, Kang in view of Fan teaches the semiconductor device of claim 24, further comprising a solder layer on the conductive layer (Kang Fig. 7, solder 280) and, wherein the top portion is further exposed by the IMC layer and the solder layer (see Fan Fig. 5, sidewalls are exposed by solder, and therefore also by any IMC created between solder and metal).
Kang in view of Fan does not specifically teach that the solder and conductive layer form an IMC. However, Olson teaches that a solder and UBM together form an IMC during reflow (Olson paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the UBM and solder of Kang could have formed an IMC during solder melting because this is a well known byproduct of the melting of solder against a copper or other metallic UBM/pad.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is 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 claim 26, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein a first sidewall of the top portion of the conductive layer is exposed by the seed layer, and a second sidewall opposite to the first sidewall of the top portion of the conductive layer is covered by the seed layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan G Clinton whose telephone number is (571)270-0525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, 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 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.
/EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899