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 1-11 and 20 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, claim 1 recites “where the RF signal is not routed through the first substrate of the controller die or the second substrate of the MEMS die”. However, it is unclear what the term “routed through” requires. Under one interpretation “routed through” could mean that the RF signal is transmitted through the substrate via a conductor (ie. circuitry) embedded in the substrate. However, under a second interpretation “routed through” could mean that the RF signal is transmitted through the substrate via the substrate material. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language. For compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “routed through” to mean that the RF signal is transmitted via the substrate material. Thus, given the Examiner’s interpretation, the limitation “wherein the RF signal is not routed through the first substrate of the controller die or the second substrate of the MEMS die” requires that the RF signal is not transmitted via the substrate material but can be transmitted via conductors (i.e. circuitry) that is embedded in the substrate material.
Under the interpretation of “routed through” that requires the RF signal is transmitted via circuitry, Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein the RF signal is not routed through the first substrate of the controller die or the second substrate of the MEMS die”. However, it is unclear how the RF signal would not be routed through the first and second substrate when earlier in claim 1 it is recited “controller circuitry formed in and over a first substrate… MEMS circuitry formed in or over a second substrate”. If the respective controller circuitry and MEMS circuitry are formed in respective first and second substrate, then the RF signal from the MEMS circuitry would be routed through at least the second substrate.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the first connector”. However, “a first connector” is not recited earlier in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear to which structure “a first connector” refers. Thus, “the first connector” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to resolve the antecedent basis issue. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the first connector” to be the same structure as “a first electrical connector” which is recited earlier in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “without routing the RF signal through the first substrate of the controller die or the second substrate of the MEMS die”. However, it is unclear what the term “routed through” requires. Under one interpretation “routed through” could mean that the RF signal is transmitted through the substrate via a conductor (ie. circuitry) embedded in the substrate. However, under a second interpretation “routed through” could mean that the RF signal is transmitted through the substrate via the substrate material. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language. For compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “routed through” to mean that the RF signal is transmitted via the substrate material. Thus, given the Examiner’s interpretation, the limitation “wherein the RF signal is not routed through the first substrate of the controller die or the second substrate of the MEMS die” requires that the RF signal is not transmitted via the substrate material but can be transmitted via conductors (i.e. circuitry) that is embedded in the substrate material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vandemeer et al. (US 2015/0353348) hereinafter “Vandemeer”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 2 of Vandemeer teaches a vertically stacked structure, comprising: a microelectromechanical (MEMS) die (Combination of Items 58 and 70) operably connected to a controller die (Item 104) using a first electrical connector (Item 90), wherein: the controller die (Item 104) comprises controller circuitry (Combination of Items 106 and 108) formed in and over a first substrate (Portion of Items 104 that is not active circuitry), the controller circuitry (Combination of Items 108 and 106) operably connected to the first electrical connector (Item 90); the MEMS die (Combination of Items 58 and 70) comprises MEMS circuitry (Combination of Items 70, 80, 114 and 96) formed in or over a second substrate (Item 58), the MEMS circuitry operably connected to the first electrical connector (Item 90); and the first electrical connector (Item 90) is operable to transmit a control signal from the controller circuitry to the MEMS circuitry (Paragraph 0031); and a second electrical connector (Item 82) operably connected to the MEMS circuitry (Paragraph 0029), the second electrical connector (Item 82) operable to transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal from the MEMS circuitry and out of the vertically stacked structure, wherein the RF signal is not routed through the first substrate (Portion of Items 104 that is not active circuitry ) of the controller die (Item 104) or the second substrate (Item 58) of the MEMS die (Where the RF signal is not routed through the glass material of the substrate but instead is routed through electrical circuitry which runs along and through the glass substrate; See the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 1B of Vandemeer further teaches an encapsulation layer (Item 35) formed over a backside surface of the controller die (Item 104), sides of the controller die, and exposed portions of the MEMS die (Combination of Items 70 and 58).
Regarding claim 4, Figs. 1B and 2 of Vandemeer further teach a dam structure (Item 54) surrounding a perimeter of a space between the MEMS die (Combination of Items 58 and 70) and the controller die (Item 104), the dam structure (Item 54) forming a closed region that creates an air pocket region; and an encapsulation material (Item 35) around the perimeter of the space.
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 2 of Vandemeer further teaches where the controller circuitry comprises: a conductive layer (Item 84; Paragraph 0031) in a dielectric layer; and an active device (Item 108) operably connected to the conductive layer (Item 84).
Regarding claim 8, Figs. 1B and 2 of Vandemeer further teach where the MEMS circuitry comprises a conductive layer (Item 110) in a dielectric layer (Item 35); and the MEMS die comprises: a redistribution layer (Item 114(1)) operably connected between the conductive layer (Item 110) and a third electrical connector (Item 116), the third electrical connector (Item 116) operable to receive a power signal; and a through silicon via (Item 96) operably connecting the conductive layer (Item 110) to the first electrical connector.
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 1B of Vandemeer further teaches encapsulation material (Item 35) material in a space between (See Picture 1 below) the MEMS die (Combination of Item 58 and 70) and the controller die (Item 104).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 1 (Labeled version of Fig. 1B of Vandemeer)
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 2 of Vandemeer teaches where the second substrate (Item 58) comprises a first dielectric substrate; and the first substrate (Portion of Items 104 that is not active circuitry) comprises a second dielectric substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 2 of Vandemeer further teaches where the second substrate (Item 58) comprises one dielectric layer with the MEMS circuitry (Combination of Items 70, 80, 114 and 96) disposed in and over the one dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 2 (when rotated to the right 90 degrees) of Vandemeer teaches a vertically stacked structure, comprising: a microelectromechanical (MEMS) die (Combination of Items 58 and 70); a controller die (Item 104), wherein a backside surface (Top surface) of the MEMS die is operably connected to a frontside surface (Bottom surface) of the controller die through a first electrical connector (Item 90), wherein: the controller die (Item 104) comprises a first substrate (Portion of Items 104 that is not active circuitry) and controller circuitry (Item 108), the controller circuitry (Item 108) operably connected to the first electrical connector (Item 90) to enable the controller circuitry to transmit control signal to the first electrical connector (Item 90); the MEMS die comprises a second substrate (Item 58) and a MEMS radio frequency (RF) switch (Item 70; Paragraph 0003), the MEMS RF switch operably connected to the first electrical connector (Item 90) to enable the MEMS RF switch to receive the control signal; an air pocket region (Item 88) resides in a space between the backside surface (Top surface) of the MEMS die and the frontside surface (Bottom surface) of the controller die; and a second electrical connector (Item 110) is operably connected to the MEMS RF switch, the second electrical connector operable to transmit an RF signal from the MEMS RF switch and out of the vertically stacked structure, wherein the RF signal remains at a frontside surface (Bottom surface) of the MEMS die.
Regarding claim 13, Figs. 1B and 2 of Vandemeer teach a dam structure (Item 54) surrounding the space (Item 88), the dam structure (Item 54) forming a closed region that creates the air pocket region; and an encapsulation material (Item 35) surrounding the space.
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 2 of Vandemeer teaches where the second substrate (Item 58) comprises a first dielectric substrate; and the first substrate (Portion of Items 104 that is not active circuitry) comprises a second dielectric substrate.
Regarding claim 16, Fig.2 of Vandemeer further teaches where the second substrate (Item 58) comprises one dielectric layer; and the MEMS RF switch (Paragraph 0003; Item 70) is disposed in a MEMS cavity that is encapsulated by the one dielectric layer (Where Item 58 defines part of the cavity; See Examiner’s Note below).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the at least one dielectric layer fully encapsulates the cavity. Therefore, Item 58 being part of a structure that encapsulates the cavity reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 17,Fig. 2 of Vandemeer further teaches where the MEMS die comprises a redistribution layer (Item 114(1)) operably connected between a conductive layer (Item 114(3)) and the second electrical connector (Item 82); and the MEMS RF switch (Item 70; Paragraph 0003) is operably connected to the conductive layer (Item 114(3)).
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 2 of Vandemeer further teaches where the controller circuitry comprises: a conductive layer in a dielectric layer; and an active device (Item 108) operably connected to the conductive layer; and the controller die (Item 104) comprises a redistribution layer operably connected between the conductive layer and the first electric connector (Item 90).
Regarding claim 20, Fig. 2 of Vandemeer (when rotated 90 degrees to the right) teaches a method, comprising: forming a dam structure (Item 54) over a backside surface (Top surface) of a microelectromechanical (MEMS) die (Combination of Items 58 and 70); physically and operably connecting the backside surface (Top surface) of the MEMS die to a frontside surface (Bottom surface) of a controller die (Item 104) using a first electrical connector (Item 90), wherein: the controller die (Item 104) comprises a first substrate (Portion of Items 104 that is not active circuitry) and controller circuitry (Item 108), the controller circuitry operably connected to the first electrical connector (Item 90) to enable the first electrical connector to transmit a control signal to the MEMS die (Paragraph 0031); the MEMS die comprises a second substrate (Item 58) and a MEMS radio frequency (RF) switch (Paragraph 0003), the MEMS RF switch operably connected to the first electrical connector (Item 90) to enable the MEMS RF switch to receive the control signal from the first electrical connector (Item 90); and the dam structure (Item 54) surrounds a space between the frontside surface (Bottom surface) of the controller die (Item 104) and the backside surface (Top surface) of the MEMS die (Combination of Items 59 and 70) to create an air pocket region; forming an encapsulation layer (Fig. 1B; Item 35) over a backside surface of the controller layer and over portions of the backside surface of the MEMS die; and operably connecting the MEMS RF switch to a second electrical connector (Item 110) to enable the second electrical connector to transmit an RF signal from the MEMS RF switch and out of the vertically stacked structure without routing the RF signal through the first substrate of the controller die or the second substrate of the MEMS die (Where the RF signal is not routed through the glass material of the substrate but instead is routed through electrical circuitry which runs along and through the glass substrate; See the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandemeer et al. (US 2015/0353348) hereinafter “Vandemeer” in view of O Suileabhain et al. (US 2008/0157339) hereinafter “O Suileabhain”.
Regarding claim 2, Vandemeer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the MEMS circuitry is at a frontside surface of the MEMS die; the first electrical connector is located at a backside surface of the MEMS die; and the MEMS circuitry is operably connected to the first connector through a through silicon via.
Fig. 2A of O Suileabhain teaches where MEMS circuitry (Item 14) is at a frontside surface (Bottom surface) of the MEMS die (Item 17); a first electrical connector is located at a backside surface (Top surface) of the MEMS die (Item 17); and the MEMS circuitry is operably connected to the first connector through a through silicon via (Where there are electrical connections through Item 17 to electrically connect Item 15 to Item 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the MEMS device of Vandemeer flipped such that the MEMS circuitry is at a frontside surface of the MEMS die; the first electrical connector is located at a backside surface of the MEMS die; and the MEMS circuitry is operably connected to the first connector through a through silicon via because this is a known configuration of a package (O Suileabhain Paragraph 0005).
Claims 5, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandemeer et al. (US 2015/0353348) hereinafter “Vandemeer” in view of Chung et al. (US 2009/0194829) hereinafter “Chung”.
Regarding claim 5, Vandemeer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Vandemeer further teaches where the MEMS circuitry comprises a MEMS RF switch (Paragraph 0003) that is formed in a MEMS cavity (cavity formed by the seal ring [Item 54]); and the MEMS cavity is encapsulated by a dielectric layer (Item 35) and the seal ring (Item 54).
Chung teaches where seal rings (Item 126) could be formed of polymers (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal ring be formed with a polymer material because a polymer is a pliable material that is known to form a space to protect MEMS devices (Chung Paragraph 0022) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
When the seal ring of Vandemeer is formed of a polymer material the MEMS cavity will be encapsulated by dielectric layers.
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 2 of Vandemeer further teaches where the MEMS circuitry comprises a conductive layer (Item 114(3)) operably connected to the MEMS RF switch (Item 70); and the MEMS die comprises a redistribution layer (Item 114(1)) operably connected between the conductive layer (Item 114(3)) and the second electrical connector (Item 82).
Regarding claim 14, Vandemeer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the dam structure is formed with a polymer material.
Chung teaches where seal rings (Item 126) could be formed of polymers (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dam structure be formed with a polymer material because a polymer is a pliable material that is known to form a space to protect MEMS devices (Chung Paragraph 0022) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandemeer et al. (US 2015/0353348) hereinafter “Vandemeer” in view of We et al. (US 2021/0280523) hereinafter “We”.
Regarding claim 19, Vandemeer teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the vertically stacked structure is less than four hundred and sixty micrometers.
We teaches where a height (Item H4) of a die module is between 100 and 600 micrometers (Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the vertically stacked structure is less than four hundred and sixty micrometers because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05) and because it would be obvious to design the IC module to achieve an overall height of an IC package (We Paragraph 0038).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights