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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments pertaining to Claim 1 on pages 8-10,
Applicant argues that Van Der Wiel et al. (Van) (US 2022/0165935) does not disclose the claim feature of measuring a magnetic field parallel to the surface of the substrate, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Van expressly discloses that the Bx and By fields are measured and are parallel to the substrate (paragraph [0066]).
Applicant argues a distinction between the term "sense" and measure," but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not provide any evidence to support such an argument. These terms are used synonymously in the art of magnetic sensing. For example, US 2023/0138691 to Motz explains in paragraph [0039] "As sensor 130, FIG. 1 shows by way of example a Hall sensor for measuring a magnetic field." US 2004/0085065 to Johnson et al. explains in paragraph [0042] that "The basic device structure for a modified hybrid Hall device 20 that measures two vector field components is depicted in FIGS. 2(a) and 2(b)." As seen in these figures, no processing or measurement circuits are present. Instead, only Hall elements are present as part of the Hall sensor that is expressly disclosed to "measure" two vector field components of a magnetic field. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that any field measured or sensed by the sensor is a horizontal magnetic field, because there is no distinction between the vertical and horizontal magnetic field. Meaning, merely because a field along one direction has been changed in direction does not mean it is no longer that field. The Hall sensors do sense and measure the claimed field, and the field has merely be diverted in direction so that they can sense it. As such, any measurement by these sensors is an automatic sensing of such a field. That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes that the argued definition is not the broadest reasonable definition, and instead is merely one possible definition. Another, broader definition that is consistent with the disclosure, is "to detect physical phenomena, as light, temperature, radioactivity, etc., mechanically, electrically, or photoelectrically" per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sense. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with applicant's disclosure, is the ability to detect, in some manner, a physical phenomena. The Hall sensors can detect the claimed field, even though they may require the use of flux conductors to make such a detection. This interpretation is consistent with the original disclosure.
The Examiner further respectfully notes that there is a difference between claiming the manner in which a sensor can sense, as opposed to claiming a specific magnetic field. The Examiner acknowledges that a horizontal Hall sensor, for example, senses a magnetic field perpendicular to its plane. However, applicant is not claiming the fundamental manner in which the claimed magnetic sensor is sensing, but rather is claiming what magnetic field it is configured to sense. While similar, these concepts are different, because a sensor such as a Hall sensor can be configured such that it is sensing a magnetic field that was parallel to its plane but has been converted to a direction that the Hall sensor can detect. Merely because the direction of the original magnetic field has been altered does not mean that field is no longer originally parallel to the surface of the substrate as required in the claim. The claim further does not limit the timing of when any sensing occurs, such that the sensing, for example, must occur at a time that the field is parallel to the surface. The sensors of Van do sense a magnetic field that is parallel to the surface of the substrate, even if it has been converted to a direction that they can detect at a later time. The same explanation pertains to Bidaux et al. (Bidaux) (US 2022/0137161).
Applicant further argues that Whig et al. (Whig) (US 2011/0244599) discloses a sense element in a dielectric layer and not in a semiconductor substrate. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Whig is not relied upon for such a feature, any layer of a semiconductor device that supports an electrical component is a substrate. For example, the definition of “substrate” is “Electronics. a supporting material on which a circuit is formed or fabricated” per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/substrate. Applicant is, as best understood, interpreting the lowest supporting layer as the substrate, but there is no such requirement in the claim.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments directed towards Claim 15 on page 10,
Applicant states that applicant disagrees that Whig et al. (Whig) (US 2011/0244599) does not disclose a sensor in a substrate, but applicant, respectfully, does not provide any further explanation. In Figure 6 of Whig, a sensor, such as sensor 123, is expressly shown to be in layer 242, which is reasonably a substrate. A substrate is, respectfully, nothing more than "a supporting material on which a circuit is formed or fabricated" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/substrate). This layer is therefore reasonably a substrate.
With regard to the arguments directed towards Claim 22 on pages 11-12,
Applicant disagrees with the interpretation of "space," but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, no specific explanation as to why such an interpretation is presented. The only requirement from the claims, consistent with the disclosure, is that the "space" must be something that separates the first and second regions. However, these regions are primarily undefined in the claim, only being limited by the fact that the layer of magnetic material must include these regions. Because no reasonable boundaries are placed on these regions, any amount of magnetic material can be selected to be one of these regions, and then any space that exists between these designated regions can be the claimed space. Applicant, respectfully, does not reasonably explain why interpreting the regions and subsequent space between them would be unreasonable. Instead, the Examiner is making such an interpretation based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the disclosure. The Examiner is not equating magnetic material with a space between regions of magnetic material as argued. Instead, as expressly seen in the figure noted by applicant, specific magnetic material is being equated to the regions, because the claim expressly requires that the magnetic material include the regions. The space separating the regions is just that, space as seen in the figures. Sensor Hc is entirely located within that space separating each of the flux concentrators (magnetic materials defining the first and second regions). This interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim feature, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees. Applicant then argues that Whig does not disclose a semiconductor die include a semiconductor substrate including a magnetic sensor in the semiconductor material, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not provide any explanation as to why the prior art fails to disclosure this feature. Paragraphs [0130],[0210] and Figures 6,10a-d reasonably establish that the sensing elements are in the substrate material as claimed.
With regard to the arguments directed towards Claim 9 on page 12,
The Examiner respectfully notes that the Whig does disclose the argued feature for the reasons stated above. While applicant disagrees with the previous rejection, applicant does not reasonably present any argument as to why applicant believes the prior art fails to disclose the claim features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant's attention to the above response and prior Office Action.
With regard to any remaining claims and arguments, Applicant's attention is directed to the above response and prior Office Action.
With regard to the Finality of the Rejection section,
This issue was addressed in the previous Advisory Action of 10/17/2025. That stated, this argument is moot as applicant has filed an RCE.
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 15-20 is 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.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “forming a first magnetic flux concentrator over a semiconductor die including a semiconductor substrate” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. While a die comprises and thus includes the substrate, it is not necessarily limited to the substrate. This issue is raised because, as worded, it is unclear if the concentrator is required to be over the die, the substrate, or both as currently claimed. This claim can reasonably be interpreted in more than one manner, rendering it indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the concentrator being over the substrate reasonably meets the claim feature.
As to Claims 16-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 15 and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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, 2, 5-8, 22, 23, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Wiel et al. (Van) (US 2022/0165935).
PNG
media_image1.png
192
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Van discloses A sensor device comprising: a semiconductor die including: a semiconductor substrate (see above figure) including a magnetic sensor (any one of or combination of Hc,H1-H4) in a semiconductor material (Paragraphs [0130],[0210] / note that point of these paragraphs is to demonstrate that the sensing elements are all Hall sensor elements in the substrate material), (Figures 6,10a-10d); the magnetic sensor configurable to sense a magnetic field in the semiconductor substrate, the magnetic field being parallel with a surface of the semiconductor substrate (Paragraphs [0004],[0112] / note the sensors are designed to sense magnetic fields in the Bx and By directions, and these directions are both parallel to the top surface of the substrate), and an interconnect structure (metal layer(s) 1023) opposing the surface of semiconductor substrate (Figure 10a), (Paragraph [0210]),(see above figure and note that layer 1023 is located on all of the substrate layer, including the side surfaces); a first magnetic flux concentrator (612a) over and on the semiconductor die (Paragraph [0215]), (Figures 6,10d); and a second magnetic flux concentrator (612c) over and on the semiconductor die (Paragraph [0215]), (Figures 6,10d), in which at least part of the magnetic sensor is between the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator along an axis parallel with the surface (Figure 6 / note the sensors positioned between either the flux concentrators in the X or Y direction), packaging the semiconductor die and the first and second magnetic flux concentrators to form an integrated circuit (Paragraphs [0018],[0222] / note by packaging the semiconductor die, all elements are reasonably packaged as claimed).
As to Claim 2,
Van discloses the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are spaced from a respective nearest active sensor element of the magnetic sensor along the axis(Figure 6).
As to Claim 5,
Van discloses the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator each has a thickness in a direction normal to a top surface of the semiconductor substrate, the thickness being equal to or greater than 10 um (Paragraph [0186]).
As to Claim 6,
Van discloses the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are of a distance in a range from 5 um to 100 um from the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Figures 6,10d), (Paragraph [0186] / note that if the magnetic flux concentrator is in range of 20-25 micrometers, for example, then the metal layer (1023) in Figure 10d but also be approximate that, and the distance between the flux concentrators and the top of the substrate (1000a) must be at least about 20-25 micrometers from the top surface. This is because the figure is not silent as to the thickness of the concentrator shown, and the relative thicknesses shown therefore are based upon the expressly disclosed thickness of the concentrators).
As to Claim 7,
Van discloses the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator include a material selected from the group consisting of cobalt, nickel, or iron (Paragraph [0028]).
As to Claim 8,
Van discloses a third magnetic flux concentrator (612d) over the semiconductor die (Figures 6,10d); and a fourth magnetic flux concentrator (612b) over the semiconductor die (Figures 6,10d), wherein: the magnetic sensor is a first magnetic sensor (H1 or Hc); the magnetic field is a first magnetic field, the semiconductor substrate includes a second magnetic sensor (H2) in the semiconductor material (Figure 6); the second magnetic sensor is between the third magnetic flux concentrator and the fourth magnetic flux concentrator along a second axis and is configurable to sense a second magnetic field parallel with the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Figure 6); and the first axis is angled from the second axis (Paragraphs [0130],[0210]] / note that point of these paragraphs is to demonstrate that the sensing elements are all on a semiconductor substrate with the Hall sensor elements in the substrate material), (Figures 6,10a-10d / note the first axis can be the X axis and the second axis can be the Y axis).
As to Claim 22,
PNG
media_image2.png
407
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van discloses A sensor device comprising: a semiconductor die including: a semiconductor substrate (see above figure) including a magnetic sensor (any one of or combination of Hc,H1-H4, such as H1) in a semiconductor material (Paragraphs [0130],[0210] / note that point of these paragraphs is to demonstrate that the sensing elements are all on a semiconductor substrate with the Hall sensor elements in the substrate material), (Figures 6,10a-10d); and an interconnect structure (metal layer(s) 1023) over the semiconductor substrate (Figure 10a), (Paragraph [0210]),(see above figure); and a layer of magnetic material (612a,612c) over the semiconductor die (Figure 6,10d), (Paragraph [0210]), the layer of the magnetic material including a first region, a second region, and a space separating between the first and second regions, the magnetic sensor being entirely within a footprint of the space (Figure 6), (see above figure / note as seen above, a space exists between 612a and 612c, and sensor Hc is completely within that space, but also note that the above dotted circle can be interpreted to be any size, such as one where sensors H1 and H3 are both entirely located within and any region can begin at an inner portion of the magnetic material and is not required to begin and end at any particular physical end of the material, because the claim does not define what the first and second regions must be, note further that while Figure 10d shows magnetic material directly above the sensor, that magnetic material is material 611 directly above sensor Hc and does not show the material for the other sensors).
As to Claim 23,
Van discloses the magnetic sensor includes at least one of: an in-plane Hall sensor, a vertical Hall sensor, or a sensor configurable to sense a magnetic field parallel with a surface of the semiconductor die opposing the interconnect structure (see above figure and note that as explained above, the sensors are configured to sense fields parallel to the surface of the die, which will oppose the interconnect structure).
As to Claim 24,
Van discloses the first and second regions are configurable to be magnetic flux concentrators (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0210]).
As to Claim 27,
Van discloses the layer of the magnetic material includes a third region and a fourth region separated by the space (see above figure), the magnetic sensor is a first magnetic sensor (Figure 6), the first magnetic sensor is between the first and second regions along a first direction (Figure 6 / note the direction is a left/right direction when the sensor is H1), the semiconductor substrate includes a second magnetic sensor (H4) (Figure 6), the second magnetic sensor is between the third and fourth regions along a second direction (see above figure); and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (see above figure / note the second direction is in the up/down direction).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bidaux et al. (Bidaux) (US 2022/0137161).
PNG
media_image3.png
322
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Bidaux discloses A sensor device comprising: a semiconductor die including: a semiconductor substrate including a magnetic sensor (any one of or combination of Hc,H1-H4) in a semiconductor material (Paragraphs [0117],[0168],[0171]] / note that point of these paragraphs is to demonstrate that the sensing elements are all magnetic sensor elements in the substrate material), (Figures 8a,9b)), the magnetic sensor configurable to sense a magnetic field in the semiconductor substrate, the magnetic field being parallel with a surface of the semiconductor substrate (Figure 9b), (Paragraphs [0003],[0168] / note the sensors are designed to sense in the Bx and By directions, thus causing them to detect in a direction parallel to the surface of the substrate), and an interconnect structure opposing the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Figure 9b), (Paragraph [0171] / note the metal layer used for the bond wires), (see above figure / note the interconnect layer is on the side surface and includes the metal connections for the bond wire); a first magnetic flux concentrator (812a) over and on the semiconductor die (Paragraphs [0168],[0171]), (Figures 8a,9b); and a second magnetic flux concentrator (812c) over and on the semiconductor die (Paragraphs [0168],[0171), (Figures 8a,9b), in which at least part of the magnetic sensor is between the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator along an axis parallel with the surface (Figure 8a), (Paragraphs [0003],[0168]),(Claim 1), packaging the semiconductor die and the first and second magnetic flux concentrators to form an integrated circuit (Paragraphs [0009],[0025] / note by packaging the semiconductor die, all elements are reasonably packaged as claimed).
As to Claim 3,
Bidaux discloses the interconnect structure includes an interconnect metal layer and a bond pad (Figures 9b,12 / note there must be a bond pad on the metal layer to allow the wires to bond/attach to the metal layer), (Paragraphs [0171],[0177]); the semiconductor die includes a protective dielectric layer (any of the insulation layers) over the interconnect metal layer (Paragraph [0177]), (Figure 12); and the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the protective dielectric layer (Figures 8a,12), (Paragraphs [0115],[0117]) .
As to Claim 4,
Bidaux discloses the semiconductor die further includes a polymer layer (1224) over the protective dielectric layer (Figures 8a,12), (Paragraphs [0115],[0117]); and the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the polymer layer (Figure 8a).
As to Claim 22,
PNG
media_image4.png
363
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bidaux discloses A sensor device comprising: a semiconductor die including: a semiconductor substrate (see above figure) including a magnetic sensor (any one of or combination of Hc,H1-H4) in a semiconductor material (Paragraphs [0117],[0168],[0171]] / note that point of these paragraphs is to demonstrate that the sensing elements are all on a semiconductor substrate with the Hall sensor elements in the substrate material), (Figures 8a,9b)), and an interconnect structure over the semiconductor substrate (Figure 9b), (Paragraph [0171] / note the metal layer used for the bond wires), (see above figure / note the interconnect layer is on the side surface and includes the metal connections for the bond wire); and a layer of magnetic material (812a,812c) over the semiconductor die (Figures 8a,9b), (Paragraph [0168]), the layer of the magnetic material including a first region, a second region, and a space separating between the first and second regions, the magnetic sensor being entirely within a footprint of the space (Figure 8a), (see above figure / note as seen above, a space exists between 812a and 812c, and sensor Hc is completely within that space, but also note that the above dotted circle can be interpreted to be any size, such as one where sensors H1 and H3 are both entirely located within, because the claim does not define what the first and second regions must be and any region can begin at an inner portion of the magnetic material and is not required to begin and end at any particular physical end of the material, note further that while Figure 9b shows magnetic material directly above the sensor, , that magnetic material is material 811 directly above sensor Hc and does not show the material for the other sensors).
As to Claim 25,
Bidaux discloses the interconnect structure includes an interconnect metal layer and a bond pad (Figures 9b,12 / note there must be a bond pad on the metal layer to allow the wires to bond/attach to the metal layer), (Paragraphs [0171],[0177]); the semiconductor die includes a protective dielectric layer (any of the insulation layers) over the interconnect metal layer (Paragraph [0177]), (Figure 12); and the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the protective dielectric layer (Figures 8a,12), (Paragraphs [0115],[0117]) .
As to Claim 26,
Bidaux discloses the semiconductor die further includes a polymer layer (1224) over the protective dielectric layer (Figures 8a,12), (Paragraphs [0115],[0117]); and the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the polymer layer (Figure 8a).
Claims 1, 15, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whig et al. (Whig) (US 2011/0244599).
As to Claim 1,
Whig discloses A sensor device comprising: a semiconductor die including: a semiconductor substrate including a magnetic sensor (any one 122,123,124,125) in a semiconductor material (Paragraphs [0005],[0016],[0021] / note the entire device is a chip and thus the layer with the sensors is a die), (Abstract / note a magnetoresistive sensor is an in-plane sensor) (Figures 1,6 ), the magnetic sensor configurable to sense a magnetic field in the semiconductor substrate, the magnetic field being parallel with a surface of the semiconductor substrate (Abstract / note magnetoresistive sensors sense in-plane and thus parallel to a top surface of the substrate); and an interconnect structure (layer 283 with vias 292) opposing the surface of the semiconductor substrate (Figure 9), (Paragraph [0041]); a first magnetic flux concentrator (any one of 136, 137, 138, 139 corresponding to the selected sensor) over the semiconductor die (Figures 1, 3, and 6), (Paragraphs [0021],[0033] / note element 214/216 are the same as the above noted flux concentrators); and a second magnetic flux concentrator (any of 132, 133, 134, and 135 corresponding to the selected sensor) over the semiconductor die, in which at least part of the magnetic sensor is between the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator along an axis parallel with the surface (Figures 1, 3, and 6), (Paragraphs [0021],[0033] / note element 214/216 are the same as the above noted flux concentrators).
As to Claim 15,
Whig discloses A method comprising: forming a first magnetic flux concentrator (any one of 136, 137, 138, 139 corresponding to the selected sensor) over a semiconductor die including a semiconductor substrate (202) (Figure 6 / note the sensor, such as 123, is over semiconductor substate layer 202), (Paragraph [0037]); the semiconductor substrate including an in-plane magnetic sensor (any one 122,123,124,125) (Paragraphs [0005],[0021]), (Abstract / note a magnetoresistive sensor is an in-plane sensor) (Figures 1,6 ); forming a second magnetic flux concentrator (any of 132, 133, 134, and 135 corresponding to the selected sensor) on the semiconductor die (Figures 1, 3, and 6), (Paragraphs [0021],[0033] / note element 214/216 are the same as the above noted flux concentrators), so that at least part of the in-plane magnetic sensor is between the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator (Figure 1); and packaging the semiconductor die and the first and second magnetic flux concentrators to form an integrated circuit (Paragraphs [0004],[0005] / note the point of the invention is to provide an improved fabrication process for packaging the sensor, and thus the device is reasonably packaged).
As to Claim 16,
Whig discloses forming an interconnect structure (292) over the semiconductor substrate (Figure 9), (Paragraph [0041]) , the interconnect structure including a metal layer that includes an external connector bond pad (Paragraphs [0041]), (Claim 5); and forming a protective dielectric layer (284) over the interconnect structure (Paragraph [0041]), wherein the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the protective dielectric layer (Figure 9 / note that this phrase is relative and rotating Figure 9 180 degrees causes the concentrators to be over the protective dielectric layer).
As to Claim 22,
Whig discloses A sensor device comprising: a semiconductor die including :a semiconductor substrate including a magnetic sensor (any one 122,123,124,125) in a semiconductor material ) (Paragraphs [0005],[0016],[0021] / note the entire device is a chip and thus the layer with the sensors is a die), (Abstract / note a magnetoresistive sensor is an in-plane sensor) (Figures 1,6 ); and an interconnect structure (layer 283 with vias 292) over the semiconductor substrate (Figure 9), (Paragraph [0041]); and a layer of magnetic material (any two of 136, 137, 138, 139 corresponding to the selected sensor, such as 132 and 136) over the semiconductor die (Figures 1, 3, and 6), (Paragraphs [0021],[0033] / note element 214/216 are the same as the above noted flux concentrators, the layer of the magnetic material including a first region (area of 132), a second region (area of 132), and a space separating between the first and second regions (note the space in between these regions where the sensor 126 is located), the magnetic sensor being entirely within a footprint of the space (Figure 1 / note that applicant does not define the first and second regions, and thus these regions can be defined such that any particular sensor is entirely located within a space between these regions, and any region can begin at an inner portion of the magnetic material and is not required to begin and end at any particular physical end of the material).
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.
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 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whig et al. (Whig) (US 2011/0244599) in view of Van Der Wiel et al. (Van) (US 2022/0165935).
As to Claim 9,
Whig discloses An integrated circuit comprising: a semiconductor die including a semiconductor substrate (242) (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0037]), the semiconductor substrate including an in-plane sensor (any one 122,123,124,125) (Paragraphs [0005],[0016],[0021] / note the entire device is a chip and thus a die), (Abstract / note a magnetoresistive sensor is an in-plane sensor) (Figures 1,6 ); a first magnetic flux concentrator (any one of 136, 137, 138, 139 corresponding to the selected sensor) over the semiconductor die (Figures 1, 3, and 6), (Paragraphs [0021],[0033] / note element 214/216 are the same as the above noted flux concentrators), a second magnetic flux concentrator (any of 132, 133, 134, and 135 corresponding to the selected sensor) over the semiconductor die (Figures 1, 3, and 6), (Paragraphs [0021],[0033] / note element 214/216 are the same as the above noted flux concentrators), in which at least part of the in-plane magnetic sensor is between the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator (Figure 1).
Whig does not disclose a molding compound that encapsulates the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator.
Van discloses a molding compound that encapsulates the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator (Paragraph [0222] / note an over-molding of the die would reasonable encapsulate all components of the die, including the above features).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include a molding compound that encapsulates the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator given the above disclosure and teaching of Van in order to advantageously protect the sensor device from the external environment and to reduce the chance that the device can be damaged.
As to Claim 10,
Whig discloses an interconnect structure (vias 292 in layer 283) over the semiconductor substrate (Figure 9), (Paragraph [0041]); the interconnect structure including an interconnect metal layer (conductive material in 292), (Paragraph [0041]); and a protective dielectric layer (284) over the interconnect metal layer (Paragraph [0041]), (Figure 9), wherein the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the protective dielectric layer (Figure 9 / note that this phrase is relative and rotating Figure 9 180 degrees causes the concentrators to be over the protective dielectric layer).
As to Claim 11,
Whig does not disclose discloses the semiconductor die includes a polymer layer over the protective dielectric layer, and wherein the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are on the polymer layer, and the molding compound covers the polymer layer.
Van discloses the semiconductor die includes a polymer layer (1024) over the protective dielectric layer (Paragraph [0210]), (Figure 10a); and wherein the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are on the polymer layer (Figures 6,10d), and the molding compound covers the polymer layer (Paragraph [0222] / note an over-molding of the die would reasonable encapsulate all components of the die, including the above features such as the polymer layer).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include the semiconductor die includes a polymer layer over the protective dielectric layer, and wherein the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are on the polymer layer, and the molding compound covers the polymer layer as taught by Van in order to advantageously help to reduce mechanical stress between layers, and thus increase the lifetime usability of the device (Paragraph [0050]).
As to Claim 12,
Whig does not disclose a third magnetic flux concentrator over the semiconductor die; and a fourth magnetic flux concentrator over the semiconductor die, wherein: the in-plane magnetic sensor is a first in-plane magnetic sensor; the first in-plane magnetic sensor is between the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator along a first lateral direction; the semiconductor substrate includes a second in-plane magnetic sensor in the semiconductor material; the second in-plane magnetic sensor is between the third magnetic flux concentrator and the fourth magnetic flux concentrator along a second direction; and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction; and the molding compound encapsulates the third magnetic flux concentrator and the fourth magnetic flux concentrator.
Van discloses a third magnetic flux concentrator (612d) over the semiconductor die (Figures 6,10d); and a fourth magnetic flux concentrator (612b) over the semiconductor die (Figures 6,10d), wherein: the magnetic sensor is a first magnetic sensor (H1 or Hc); the first magnetic sensor is laterally between the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator along a first lateral direction (Figure 6); the semiconductor substrate includes a second magnetic sensor (H2) in the semiconductor material (Figure 6); the second magnetic sensor is laterally between the third magnetic flux concentrator and the fourth magnetic flux concentrator along a second direction (Figure 6); and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (Paragraphs [0130],[0210]] / note that point of these paragraphs is to demonstrate that the sensing elements are all on a semiconductor substrate with the magnetic sensor elements in the substrate material), (Figures 6,10a-10d); and the molding compound encapsulates the third magnetic flux concentrator and the fourth magnetic flux concentrator (Paragraph [0222] / note an over-molding of the die would reasonable encapsulate all components of the die, including the above features).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include and to duplicate the sensor device already disclosed in Whig to therefore include a third magnetic flux concentrator over the semiconductor die; and a fourth magnetic flux concentrator over the semiconductor die, wherein: the in-plane magnetic sensor is a first in-plane magnetic sensor; the first in-plane magnetic sensor is laterally between the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator along a first lateral direction; the semiconductor substrate includes a second in-plane magnetic sensor in the semiconductor material; the second in-plane magnetic sensor is laterally between the third magnetic flux concentrator and the fourth magnetic flux concentrator along a second direction; and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction; and the molding compound encapsulates the third magnetic flux concentrator and the fourth magnetic flux concentrator given the above disclosure and teaching of Van in order to advantageously be able to measure additional components of the magnetic field and thus provide information about the field in both an X and Y direction, and further to provide redundant sensing in case one or more of the sensors fail to function properly, thereby increasing the continued useability of the device.
As to Claim 13,
Whig does not disclose the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator each have a thickness in a direction normal to a top surface of the semiconductor substrate, the thickness being equal to or greater than 10 um.
Van discloses the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator each have a thickness in a direction normal to a top surface of the semiconductor substrate, the thickness being equal to or greater than 10 um (Paragraph [0186]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include and optimize the flux concentrator dimensions to therefore include the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator each have a thickness in a direction normal to a top surface of the semiconductor substrate, the thickness being equal to or greater than 10 um as taught by Van in order to advantageously be able to concentrate a greater amount of the magnetic flux at the sensor elements and thereby increase the sensitivity of the device (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to Claim 14,
Whig discloses the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator each are laterally offset from a respective nearest active sensor element of the in-plane sensor (Figure 1).
As to Claim 17,
Whig does not disclose forming a polymer layer over the protective dielectric layer, in which the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the polymer layer.
Van discloses forming a polymer layer (1024) over the protective dielectric layer (Paragraph [0210]), (Figure 10a), in which the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the polymer layer (Figures 6,10d).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include forming a polymer layer over the protective dielectric layer, in which the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are over the polymer layer as taught by Van in order to advantageously help to reduce mechanical stress between layers, and thus increase the lifetime usability of the device (Paragraph [0050]).
As to Claim 18,
Whig does not disclose forming the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are formed by a respective electroplating process.
Van discloses forming the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are formed by a respective electroplating process (Paragraph [0185]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include forming the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator are formed by a respective electroplating process as taught by Van in order to advantageously increase the strength of the device and the lifespan of the device.
As to Claim 19,
Whig does not disclose the packaging of the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator to form the integrated circuit includes encapsulating the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator with a molding compound.
Van discloses the packaging of the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator to form the integrated circuit includes encapsulating the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator with a molding compound (Paragraphs [0018],[0222] / note by packaging the semiconductor die, all elements are reasonably packaged as claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include the packaging of the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator to form the integrated circuit includes encapsulating the semiconductor die, the first magnetic flux concentrator, and the second magnetic flux concentrator with a molding compound as taught by Van in order to advantageously protect the sensor device from the external environment and to reduce the chance that the device can be damaged.
As to Claim 20,
Whig does not disclose the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator each have a thickness in a direction normal to a top surface of the semiconductor substrate, the thickness being equal to or greater than 10 um.
Van discloses the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator each have a thickness in a direction normal to a top surface of the semiconductor substrate, the thickness being equal to or greater than 10 um (Paragraph [0186]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include and optimize the flux concentrator dimensions to therefore include the first magnetic flux concentrator and the second magnetic flux concentrator each have a thickness in a direction normal to a top surface of the semiconductor substrate, the thickness being equal to or greater than 10 um as taught by Van in order to advantageously be able to concentrate a greater amount of the magnetic flux at the sensor elements and thereby increase the sensitivity of the device (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whig et al. (Whig) (US 2011/0244599) in view of Van Dau et al. (Van Dau) (US 6,191,581).
As to Claims 21 and 28,
Whig discloses that the magnetic sensors are magnetoresistive sensors (Abstract).
Whig does not disclose the magnetic sensor is an in-plane Hall sensor or a vertical Hall sensor.
Van Dau discloses the magnetic sensor is an in-plane Hall sensor or a vertical Hall sensor (Column 1, Lines 51-56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Whig to include replacing the magnetoresistive sensor with an in-plane hall sensor to therefore include the magnetic sensor is an in-plane Hall sensor or a vertical Hall sensor as taught Van Dau in order to advantageously utilize a sensor that has great simplification in the associated technology and, on the other hand, a reduction by approximately four orders of magnitude in the thermal drift, the main noise component at low frequencies (around 1 Hz) over magnetoresistive sensors (Column 1, Lines 51-56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858