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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/350,474 filed on 07/11/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 12/01/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-21 are canceled. Applicant has submitted new claims 22-26.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the RDL includes at least one of aluminum, copper and nickel.”
Claim 8 recites “wherein the contact pad is a metal contact pad including at least one of aluminum and copper.”
The phrase “at least one of aluminum and copper” or “at least one of aluminum, copper and nickel” renders the scope of the claims unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear whether the claimed contact pad and RDL, respectively includes:
• aluminum only,
• copper only,
• nickel only,
• a combination of aluminum and copper,
• a combination of aluminum and copper and nickel,
• an alloy of aluminum and copper and nickel, and/or
• a multilayer structure comprising both aluminum and copper,
• a multilayer structure comprising aluminum and copper and nickel.
The specification does not provide any definition or clarification as to the intended meaning of this phrase, nor does it describe whether the “aluminum and copper” and “aluminum and copper and nickel” are present as distinct layers, as an alloy, or merely as alternative materials.
As a result, multiple reasonable interpretations of the claimed subject matter exist, each defining a different scope of protection. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not reasonably clear, and the claim fails to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Claim 7 requires “at least one at least one of aluminum, copper and nickel.” The examiner understands as “at least one aluminum or copper or nickel.” See Superguide v. DirecTV, 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Ex parte Jung (PTAB Appeal 2016-008290).
Claim 8 requires “at least one aluminum and copper.” The examiner understands as “at least one aluminum or copper.” See Superguide v. DirecTV, 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Ex parte Jung (PTAB Appeal 2016-008290).
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub # 2021/0082841 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee discloses a semiconductor die (Fig. 25: 200), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 25: 210) including a semiconductor device (290), the substrate (210) having a front side, a back side, and an inclined sidewall (inclined sidewall formed where 270 is formed on, also see Examiner’s Mark-up below) extending from the back side to the front side;
a contact pad (220 which is made of copper, ¶0076 presently considered to be a contact pad) connected (connected via 270, 275 and 292) to the semiconductor device (290), the contact pad (220) embedded in an inter dielectric layer (IDL) (230) disposed in the front side and the contact pad (220) having a contact pad edge (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) with a surface aligned along the inclined sidewall (see Examiner’s Mark-up below); and
a redistribution layer (RDL) (Fig. 25: 270) disposed on the inclined sidewall, the RDL (270) being physically and electrically connected to the contact pad (220) directly through the surface of the contact pad edge (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) aligned along the inclined sidewall (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses disclose wherein the contact pad is a metal contact pad including at least one of aluminum or copper (¶0076).
Regarding independent claim 22, Lee discloses a semiconductor die (Fig. 25: 200), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 25: 210) including a semiconductor device (290), the substrate (210) having a front side, a back side, and an inclined sidewall (inclined sidewall formed where 270 is formed on, also see Examiner’s Mark-up below) extending from the back side to the front side;
a contact pad (220 which is made of copper, ¶0076 presently considered to be a contact pad) connected (connected via 270, 275 and 292) to the semiconductor device (290), the contact pad (220) having a contact pad edge (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) with a surface aligned along the inclined sidewall (see Examiner’s Mark-up below); and
a redistribution layer (RDL) (Fig. 25: 270) disposed on the inclined sidewall, the RDL (270) being physically and electrically connected to the contact pad (220) directly through the surface of the contact pad edge (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) aligned along the inclined sidewall (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2021/0082841 to Lee et al. (Lee) in view of US Pub # 2017/0249493 to Yu et al. (Yu).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the contact pad is a metal contact pad including copper (¶0076).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the contact pad is a metal contact pad including aluminum.
Yu discloses wherein the contact pad is a metal contact pad including aluminum (¶0033).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the contact pad of Lee with the aluminum contact pad as taught by Yu in order to provide an electrical connection to a subsequently formed second redistribution layer (¶0033).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2021/0082841 to Lee et al. (Lee) in view of US Pub # 2017/0077158 to Huang et al. (Huang).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses all of the claim limitation of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the semiconductor device is an optical sensor device and the semiconductor die further comprises an optically active surface area (OASA) disposed on the front side of substrate.
Huang disclose wherein the semiconductor device (Fig. 1I: 120 or 150 and ¶0019 and 0021) is an optical sensor device and the semiconductor die (400) further comprises an optically active surface area (OASA) (top surface of 120 or 150) disposed on the front side of substrate (100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modify the substrate of Lee to include an optical sensor device as taught by Huang in order to sense environmental characteristics (such as a temperature-sensing element, a humidity-sensing element, a pressure-sensing element or a capacitance-sensing element) (¶0019).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all of the claim limitation of claim 9 from which this claim depends.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose a cover glass attached to the front side of the semiconductor die over the optically active surface area disposed on the front side of substrate.
Huang discloses a cover glass (Fig. 1I: 170 and ¶0023) attached to the front side of the semiconductor die (400) over the optically active surface area (top surface of 120 or 150) disposed on the front side of substrate (100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the semiconductor die of Lee with the cover glass as taught by Huang so as to protect the optical element (¶0023).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2017/0077158 to Huang et al. (Huang) in view of US Pub # 2021/0082841 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding independent claim 11, Huang discloses a package (Fig. 1I), comprising:
an optical sensor die (Fig. 1I: 120 or 150 and ¶0019 and 0021) including an optically active surface area disposed on a front side of a substrate (100);
a cover glass (Fig. 1I: 170 and ¶0023) attached to the front side of the substrate over the optically active surface area disposed on the front side of substrate (100);
a conductive contact pad (140 and ¶0021) embedded in an inter dielectric layer (IDL) (130) disposed on the front side of the substrate (100), the substrate (100) having an inclined sidewall (see Examiner’s Mark-up 1 below) extending from a back side of the substrate (100) along an edge of the IDL (130) to the front side of the substrate (100), and
a redistribution layer (RDL) (Fig. 1I: 220) disposed on the inclined sidewall (see Examiner’s Mark-up 1 below), the RDL (130) being physically and electrically connected to the conductive contact pad (140).
PNG
media_image2.png
438
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Huang fails to explicitly disclose the conductive contact pad having a contact pad edge defining a portion of the inclined sidewall and the RDL being physically and electrically connected to the conductive contact pad directly through the contact pad edge defining a portion of the inclined sidewall.
Lee discloses the conductive contact pad (Fig. 25: 220) having a contact pad edge (see Examiner’s Mark-up 2 below) defining a portion of the inclined sidewall (see Examiner’s Mark-up 2 below) and the RDL (270) being physically and electrically connected to the conductive contact pad (220) directly through the contact pad edge (see Examiner’s Mark-up 2 below) defining a portion of the inclined sidewall (see Examiner’s Mark-up 2 below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the substrate of the package of Huang with the substrate as taught by Lee in order for the redistribution layer to be electrically connected to the contact pad through the lateral surface of the contact pad (¶0081 of Lee).
PNG
media_image3.png
542
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 12-16 and 23-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the inclined sidewall includes a first inclined section extending from the back side toward the front side along a semiconductor material of the semiconductor die, a flat step section disposed above the contact pad embedded in the IDL disposed on the front side, and a second inclined section extending along an edge of the IDL disposed the front side.
Claim 12 recites:
wherein the inclined sidewall includes a first inclined section extending from the back side toward the front side of the optical sensor die up to the IDL, a flat step section disposed above the conductive contact pad embedded in the IDL disposed on the front side, and a second inclined section extending along the edge of the IDL disposed the front side, the second inclined section being offset from the first inclined section by a width of the flat step section in a direction along the conductive contact pad.
Claim 23 recites:
wherein the inclined sidewall includes a first inclined section extending from the back side toward the front side along a semiconductor material of the semiconductor die, a flat step section disposed above the contact pad, and a second inclined section extending to the front side.
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2018/0012853 to Lin et al., US Pub # 2016/0315043 to Ho et al., US Pub # 2016/0233260 to Yiu et al., US Pub # 2016/0099195 to Huang, US Pub # 2012/0205799 to Lin, US Pub # 2012/0049307 to Huang et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896