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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 10/7/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/7/2025.
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 1, 2, 6-11, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0028943, hereinafter Noh) in view of CHOU (US PG Pub 2023/0420386, hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 1, figure 1 of Nikitin discloses a semiconductor package, comprising:
a substrate (100);
a molding compound (500) covering a memory device (210) communicatively coupled to the substrate by a bond wire (215), at least a portion of the bond wire extending past a top surface of the molding compound; and
an insulation layer (317) provided above the molding compound and covering the at least the portion of the bond wire that extends past the top surface of the molding compound.
Noh does not explicitly disclose an electromagnetic interference (EMI) layer at least partially surrounding the substrate, the molding compound, and the insulation layer.
In the same field of endeavor, figure 11 of Chou discloses an electromagnetic interference (EMI) layer (214) at least partially surrounding a device including a substrate and a molding compound (212).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form an EMI layer around the device as taught by Chou for the purpose of providing protection from EMI depending on specific functionality requirements and design constraints.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the insulation layer is approximately five micrometers (µm) thick.
However, it would have been obvious to form the insulation layer with a thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 6, figure 1 of Nikitin discloses the insulation layer prevents a short from occurring between the EMI layer and the at least the portion of the bond wire that extends past the top surface of the molding compound.
Regarding claim 7, Nikitin does not explicitly disclose the insulation layer enables a Z-height of the molding compounding to be reduced by approximately forty-five micrometers (µm) or more.
However, it would have been obvious to form the insulation layer with a thickness that reduces the Z-height in the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8, figure 1 of Nikitin does not explicitly disclose the memory device is a NAND die stack.
However NAND type memory devices are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to include a NAND die stack for the purpose of forming a high storage density memory device.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the entire claimed invention as noted in the above rejections.
Regarding claim 10, Nikitin does not explicitly disclose the insulation layer is provided on the second portion of the bond wire using a one or more of a spraying process, a printing process and a sputtering process.
However, it would have been obvious to form the insulation layer (317) using a printing process for the purpose of selecting a suitable and well known process for forming die attach films.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, the prior art discloses the entire claimed invention as noted in the above rejections.
Regarding claims 16-19, the prior art discloses the entire claimed invention as noted in the above rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 12-13, 15 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU-HSI DAVID SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm ET.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/YU-HSI D SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817