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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 stand rejected under Section 102 in view of Fang. Claim 14 stands rejected under Section 102 in view of Chen. Claims 5, 7-10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under Section 103 in view of Fang. Claim 2 stands rejected under Section 103 in view of Fang and Huang. Claim 11 stands rejected under Section 103 in view of Fang and Chen. Claims 1-13, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under Section 103 in view of Chen and Fang. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under Section 103 in view of Chen. The specification and drawings stand objected to.
Applicants amended claims 1-9, 14, 16, and 18, and canceled claims 10, 12, 13, 19, and 20. Applicants provided replacement drawings and amendments to the specification. Applicants argue that the application is in condition for allowance.
Turning first to the drawings: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted drawing objections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted drawing objections are withdrawn.
Specification: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted specification objections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted specification objections are withdrawn.
Section 102 rejections: Applicants’ amendments overcome the previously noted Section 102 rejections. These rejections are withdrawn.
Section 103 rejections: Applicants’ amendments overcome the previously noted Section 103 rejections, with the exception of the Section 103 rejection of claim 18, which is updated to reflect the current claim language. (The Office notes that claim 18 was not presented in original form with mark-ups added, contrary to Office rules. See MPEP § 714(II)(C)(B) (Markings to Shown the Changes). In other circumstances, the Office would return the filing to applicants to correct this. Id. § 714(F) (Non-Compliant Amendments). However, the undersigned was well into examining the filing before discovering this, and elected to proceed with the examination.)
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 9, 2026. These drawings are accepted and entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 3: The first and second recesses are defined in the first portion and the second portion, respectively, of the first dielectric layer in claim 1. The first conductive via does not define the first and second recesses. See also claim 7 for comparison. Use a different word in claim 4.
Claim 14, line 13: Change “contacting” to “contacts”.
Claim 14, line 16: Change “passive” to “passivation”. Compare with line 3. Also, change “is filled within” to “fills”. The encapsulant is being filled by the first dielectric layer.
Claims 15-17 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 11 are 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 claim(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 has been amended to require the following:
wherein the first dielectric layer includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion surrounds the first conductive pillar and directly contacts a lateral surface and a portion of the top surface of the first conductive pillar, the second portion is directly on the first portion and does not contact the first conductive pillar, the first portion has a first top surface lower than the top surface of the first conductive pillar and a second top surface higher than the top surface of the first conductive pillar, and wherein the first portion defines a first recess and the second portion defines a second recess over the first recess, a width of the first recess is larger than a width of the second recess, and the top surface of the first conductive pillar is collectively exposed by the first recess and the second recess.
The closest figure that describes claim 1 as amended is applicants’ Figure 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
460
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Comparing the claim language with Figure 4 follows:
wherein the first dielectric layer (311, 312) includes a first portion (311) and a second portion (312), the first portion (311) surrounds the first conductive pillar (41) and directly contacts a lateral surface and a portion of the top surface (41s1) of the first conductive pillar (41), the second portion (312) is directly on the first portion (311) and does not contact the first conductive pillar (41), the first portion (311) has a first top surface (311s1) lower than the top surface (41s1) of the first conductive pillar (41) and a second top surface (at 311p) higher than the top surface (41s1) of the first conductive pillar (41), and wherein the first portion (311) defines a first recess (311o) and the second portion (312) defines a second recess (312o) over the first recess (311o), a width of the first recess (311o) is smaller, not larger as amended, than a width of the second recess (312o), and a portion, not the entirety, of the top surface (40s1) of the first conductive pillar (41) is collectively exposed by the first recess (311o) and the second recess (312o). (Other examples are Figures 5, 6, and 9, which have first and second portions of the first dielectric layer, but do not have conductive pillars.)
Because the width of the first recess (311o) is smaller, not larger, than a width of the second recess (312o), claim 1 is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement.
Claims 2-9 and 11 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Claim 2 requires “wherein a thickness of the first portion of the first dielectric layer is greater than a thickness of the first conductive pillar.” However, as shown in Figure 4, the first top surface (311s1) of the first portion (311) of the first dielectric layer (311, 312) is lower than the top surface (41s1) of the conductive pillar (41), and the conductive pillar (41) extends into passivation layer (102) while the first dielectric layer (311, 312) contacts an upper surface of passivation layer (102). Therefore, the thickness of the first portion (311) of the first dielectric layer (311, 312) is less than the thickness of the first conductive pillar (41). Because the disclosure does not support the claimed arrangement, claim 2 is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement.
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 1-9 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 1: This claim has been amended, as discussed above, to require:
the first dielectric layer includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion surrounds the first conductive pillar and directly contacts a lateral surface and a portion of the top surface of the first conductive pillar, the second portion is directly on the first portion and does not contact the first conductive pillar, […] and the top surface of the first conductive pillar is collectively exposed by the first recess and the second recess.
Thus, the claim requires the first portion to directly contact a portion of the top surface of the first conductive pillar, and then to expose the top surface of the first conductive pillar. This language either conflicts or is confusing, and for that reason, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-9 and 11 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1.
Remarks
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 14: This claim has been amended to require a depth of the recess be less than a thickness of the passivation layer. While the specification is silent as to this arrangement, this arrangement is shown in applicants’ Figure 10. Typically, when relative heights or thicknesses are added to claim limitations after the first office action, the Office will issue a Section 112(a) written description rejection unless the support is in the specification or the drawings are indicated as being at scale. However, in this case, the specification, while not specifically stating the claimed arrangement, suggests the arrangement because the recess is in the encapsulation and the passivation layer, and a recess that is greater than the thickness of the passivation layer at this location would not make sense because the recess would penetrate the electronic component (10). For these reasons, the Office finds that the newly added claim limitation is supported by the originally filed disclosure.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0237423, Figure 2E, and further in view of Fang, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0061805.
PNG
media_image2.png
393
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18: Chen Figure 2E discloses a package structure (50b), comprising: an electronic component (20a) having an active surface; an encapsulant (22a) encapsulating the electronic component (20a) and exposing the active surface of the electronic component (20a); a first conductive pillar (19a, at left) and a second conductive pillar (19a, at right) over the active surface of the electronic component (20a), wherein an upper surface of the first conductive pillar (19a, left) includes a flat portion; and a first dielectric layer (PM1) over the encapsulant (22a) and the active surface of the electronic component (20a), wherein the first dielectric layer (PM1) defines an opening exposing the flat portion of the first conductive pillar (19a, at left), a first circuit layer (RDL1) disposed over the first dielectric layer (PM1) and extending into the opening to connect to the first conductive pillar (19a, at left); and a second dielectric layer (PM2) disposed over the first dielectric layer (PM1) and covering the first circuit layer (RDL1). Chen specification ¶¶ 10-67. Chen does not disclose that wherein an upper surface of the first conductive pillar includes a concave portion; an upper surface of the first dielectric layer defines a first recess located laterally between the first conductive pillar and the second conductive pillar, the upper surface of the first dielectric layer defines a first protruded portion adjacent to the opening, and an elevation of the first protruded portion is higher than an elevation of the first recess; wherein the first circuit layer includes a second protruded portion directly over the first protruded portion of the first dielectric layer; wherein an upper surface of the second dielectric layer includes a second recess located directly over the first recess of the first dielectric layer.
Fang, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an upper surface of its conductive pillar (14) includes a concave portion (148). Fang specification ¶ 53. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Chen to replace its upper conductive pillar surface with the Fang conductive pillar concave surface because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose. Once combined, the combination discloses wherein an upper surface of the first conductive pillar (19a, at left) includes a concave portion.
As for the remaining claim requirements, the disclosure does not indicate the patentable significant of the shapes of the dielectric layers or the circuit layer. Because the shape relationship requirement is not patentably significant, claim 18 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are objected to for informalities, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the informalities.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 14: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “a recess recessed from the upper surface of the encapsulant and from the upper surface of the passiv[ation] layer, wherein the first dielectric layer [fills] the recess and contacts a lateral surface of the passivation layer”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 15-17: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 14 above.
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 VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights