DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/416151, attorney docket AD9667-US, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to Forehope Electronic (Ningbo) Co., Ltd. and claims foreign priority to 2022105411391, filed 05/19/2022. Claims 1-12, 21-25 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that “that the claim recites a "plastic package body" and has a well-defined technical meaning in the field of semiconductor packaging as it refers to an encapsulation formed through a molding process (such as epoxy resin-based materials), which serves to physically protect the chip and provide structural support. The plastic package body is molded encapsulant comprising a thermosetting resin.” This argument is a conclusory statement presented as evidence and lacks factual support as required by 37 CFR 1.131. The MPEP states: “The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). MPEP § 2145 (I). Here, the argument is inadequate because it lacks evidentiary support. Examiner will maintain the rejection until applicant can provide evidence a plastic package body was known to be only an epoxy resin-based encapsulation by one skilled in the art at the time this application was filed.
Applicant has amended claims 2,3,6, 7 and 12 and correctly argues that the amendments overcome the 112b rejections for indefiniteness of “plating bath” and antecedent, which are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the art of record Chung does not teach “that the wiring layer connected to VP2 and VP1 is higher than the wiring layer connected to the IO and has the function of protecting or shielding. In other words, there is no evidence that Chung discloses the aforementioned feature where the height of the second pad is greater.” Applicant argues that Chung does not teach a first pad lower in height than a second pad. Examiner disagrees. Figure 12 provided with annotation in the previous office action shows clearly that 211 is lower than 231. Applicant’s amendment does not overcome Chung because the pad of VP2, 221 has the same height as 231, so the ground and power pads have differing heights. Applicant argues that because the pads may be assigned either power or ground Chung does not teach that the pad is ground. Examiner disagrees. Chung teaches two embodiments in paragraph 0020 and teaching multiple embodiments does not invalidate any of the embodiments. Applicant further argues that Chung does not teach a grounding connection that has the function of protecting or shielding. Examiner disagrees. Chung explicitly states in paragraph 20 that VP1 or VP2 may be connected to a ground, which provides grounding to the device.
Because the applicant has not traversed the rejection based on Chun, examiner must maintain the rejection, which is reproduced below, amended to account for applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a plastic body…” it is not clear if the claim is for a generic polymer or non-rigid material.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the parent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Chung et al. (U.S. 2022/0216190).
As for claim 1,
Chung teaches in figure 12, a fan-out package structure, wherein the fan-out package structure comprises
a packaging element (110), a plastic package body (340/120),
a first dielectric layer (241), and a second dielectric layer (242),
the packaging element is provided thereon with a first pad (211) and a second pad (221),
wherein a height of the first pad is lower than that of the second pad (top heights are offset by the thickness of dielectric 241) the second pad is a grounding pad or a shielding pad (VP2 may act as a ground [0020].)
the plastic package body plastic-seals the packaging element ([0048]), and
an end surface of the first pad is exposed from a surface of the plastic package body (pads are exposed above 120),
one side of the first pad away from the packaging element is provided with a first wiring layer (222/260), the first wiring layer is electrically connected to the first pad, and the first wiring layer is provided thereon with a first solder ball (270); and
the first dielectric layer is provided on one side of the first wiring layer away from the packaging element,
an end surface of the second pad is exposed from a surface of the first dielectric layer, one side of the second pad away from the packaging element is provided with a second wiring layer (260), and the second pad is electrically connected to the second wiring layer; the second wiring layer is provided thereon with a second solder ball (270);
and one side of the second wiring layer away from the first wiring layer is provided with the second dielectric layer. (see annotated figure 12 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
528
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2,
Chung teaches the fan-out package structure according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer is provided thereon with a first electroplating recess, the first electroplating recess is provided therein with a first bump, the first bump is electrically connected to the first wiring layer, and the first solder ball is provided on the first bump. (Chung teaches a recess in dielectric 241 that contains the via plug V1 for VP1 and bump 260 shown in figure 13.)
As for claim 3,
Chung teaches the fan-out package structure according to claim 1, wherein the second dielectric layer is provided thereon with a second electroplating recess, the second electroplating recess provided therein with a second bump, the second bump is electrically connected to the second wiring layer, and the second solder ball is provided on the second bump. (Chung teaches a recess in dielectric 242 that contains the via plug V2 for VP2 and bump 260, shown in figure 13.)
As for claim 6,
Chung teaches the fan-out package structure according to claim 1, wherein the second dielectric layer is provided with a third electroplating recess (at 232), the third electroplating recess is provided therein with a third bump (260), the third bump is connected to the first wiring layer (at 231), and the first solder ball is connected to the third bump.
As for claim 9,
Chung teaches the fan-out package structure according to claim 1, and Chung teaches a flip chip (PK2), wherein the flip chip is provided on the first wiring layer and electrically connected to the first wiring layer.
As for claim 10,
Chung teaches the fan-out package structure according to claim 9, wherein the first wiring layer is provided thereon with a third pad (410), and the flip chip is provided on the third pad.
As for claim 22,
Chung teaches the fan-out packaging structure according to claim 6 and teaches that the first solder ball and the second solder ball are of an equal dimension.
As for claim 23,
Chung teaches the fan-out packaging structure according to claim 1, wherein the first wiring layer and the second wiring layer are electrically connected through the first solder ball. (shown in figure 12, all are electrically connected).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Chen et al. U.S. 7019407).
As for claim 4,
Chung teaches the fan-out package structure according to claim 1, but does not teach that a diameter of the first solder ball is larger than that of the second solder ball.
However, Chen teaches in figure 2, second solder balls (150) with a larger diameter than first solder balls (152). Chen [co2 ln35]
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use the bump sizes taught by Chen in Chung to prevent the bumps being dislocated before soldering. (Chen [co2 ln7-17]). One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 5,
Chung teaches fan-out package structure according to claim 1, but does not teach that the first solder ball is partially embedded in the second dielectric layer.
However, Chen teaches in figure 2, the first solder ball is partially embedded in the second dielectric layer.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use the bump arrangement taught by Chen in Chung to prevent the bumps being dislocated before soldering. (Chen [co2 ln7-17]). One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7, 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of view of Chia et al. (U.S. 2008/0237836).
As for claim 7
Chung teaches the fan-out package structure according to claim 1, and Chung teaches a first buffer layer (250), the first buffer layer is provided between the first pad and the second pad adjacent to each other or the packaging element is provided thereon with a plurality of second pads, and the first buffer layer is provided between two adjacent second pads but does not teach a coefficient of thermal expansion of the first buffer layer is smaller than that of the plastic package body.
However, Chia teaches in figure 2F, a buffer layer (24) between pads, (231/233) with a lower CTE than the lower portion and higher than the RDLS.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to substitute the buffer layer of Chia to Chung to help reduce cracking of the RDL during heated operation. (Chia, abstract) One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 8,
Chung in view of Chia makes obvious the fan-out package structure according to claim 7, wherein: if the first buffer layer is provided between the first pad and the second pad adjacent to each other, the first buffer layer is made of an insulation material; and if the first buffer layer is provided between the two adjacent second pads, the first buffer layer is made of an insulation material or a conductive material. In the combination Chia teaches an insulating polymer [0027]. It must be an insulator between conductors, to prevent shorting.
As for claim 24,
Chung makes obvious the fan-out packaging structure according to claim 11, and makes obvious a second buffer layer is further included (corresponding to 250 of figure 13) the second buffer layer is provided on aside of the first wiring layer away from the flip chip, but does not teach that second buffer layer is provided between the first chip and the second chip, and a coefficient of thermal expansion of the second buffer layer is smaller than that of the plastic package body.
However, Chia teaches in figure 2F, a buffer layer (24) between pads, (231/233) with a lower CTE than the lower portion and higher than the RDLS.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to substitute the buffer layer of Chia to Chung to help reduce cracking of the RDL during heated operation. (Chia, abstract) One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung.
As for claim 11,
Chung teaches the fan-out package structure according to claim 9, and that the flip chip is connected to the second wiring layer through the first chip (at left TSV330),
but does not teach the packaging element comprises a first chip and a second chip which are arranged at intervals, the first chip and the second chip are arranged at intervals, the flip chip is connected to the second wiring layer through the first chip and/or the second chip, and the second wiring layer is configured as a grounding circuit.
However, multiple chips is a duplication of useful parts, The court has held that mere duplication or arrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bermis Co., 193 USPQ8. In re Harza establishes "a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); See, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Here, the applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results, and the additional chip merely expands the capacity of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the invention was made to add the additional subregions.
Chung does not teach that the second wiring layer is configured as a grounding circuit.
However, the use of the wiring layer as a grounding circuit is an intended use of the wiring. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Asai (U.S. 6525275).
As for claim 21,
Chung teaches the fan-out packaging structure according to claim 1 but does not teach that the height of the first solder ball is equal to sum of height of the second solder ball and height of the second dielectric layer.
However, Asai teaches in figure 1a, a height of the first solder ball (11 at center) is equal to sum of height of the second solder ball (11 at edge) and height of the second dielectric layer (4)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application size the solder balls as taught by Asai in the device of Chung so that a connection board can have pads at a common height. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 25 are objected to but may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As for claim 12,
The prior art does not teach or make obvious a separate recess in the first dielectric containing a metal block, directly connected to the second pad, and t configured to lead out the second wiring layer.
Claim 25 depends from claim 12 and includes the same novel limitation as the parent.
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 JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central 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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
