DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 04/14/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-12, 18-20, and 26.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2021/0020505) in view of Chen (US 2020/0118960) in further view of Chun (US 2021/0090984).
Regarding claim 1, Jang shows (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor package 10, comprising:
A first redistribution structure 100
A first semiconductor chip 101 on the first redistribution structure 100
A first molding layer 103 on the first redistribution structure 100
The first molding layer 103 being disposed on the first semiconductor chip 101
Connection structures 102 on the first redistribution structure 101, the connection structures 102 extending in a vertical direction and passing through the first molding layer 103
A first insulating layer 104 on the first molding layer 103
A second redistribution structure 105
However, Jang fails (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) to show that the molding layer 103 comprises at least one lower recess at the top surface of the molding layer. Chen, in a similar device to Jang, shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 3) that the molding layer 108’ comprises at least one lower recess Rc1/Rc2 at the top surface (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0013]) of the molding layer 108’. Chen also shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 3) that, after grinding and polishing, at least one recess Rc1/Rc2 is formed on the upper surface 108-1 of the molding layer 108′ and recesses are randomly formed on the upper surface 108-1 of the insulating encapsulant 108′, and the recesses are to improve the adherence of the insulating layer 114 formed on the top of the insulating encapsulant 108’ by filling the recesses with the insulating material 114 (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0013] and [0016]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the recesses at the top surface of the molding layer of Chen in the device of Jang, in order to improve the adherence of the insulating layer formed on the top of the molding layer by filling the recesses with the insulating layer material.
Jang in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) that the second redistribution structure 130 comprises a lower redistribution insulating layer 130B on the first insulating layer 114.
Also, Jang in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 4) that the first insulating layer 114 at least partially fills the at least one lower recess Rc1/Rc2 of the first molding layer 108’.
However, Jang in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 3) to show that the at least one lower recess Rc1/Rc2 comprises a first lower recess Rc1/Rc2 at an interface between the first molding layer 108’ and at least one of the connection structures 210D.
Chun, in a similar device to Jang in view of Chen, shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) the at least one lower recess 220b/220c comprises a first lower recess 220b/220c at an interface between the first molding layer 200 and at least one of the connection structures 210. Also, Chun shows that the distance between the lowest point LP of the first inclined surface 220c and the lower protective layer 100 is shorter than the distance between the second upper surface 220b of the first insulating layer 220 and the lower protective layer 100 components (see, e.g., Chun: par. [0034]). That is, the first inclined surface 220c is a surface extending downward from the second upper surface 220b. The first inclined surface 220c extend from the second upper surface 220b toward the lower protective layer 100. The distance from the lower protective layer 100 to the lowest point LP of the first inclined surface 220c may be, for example, 0.5 to 1 times the distance from the lower protective layer 100 to the first upper surface 220a components (see, e.g., Chun: par. [0034]). Chun shows that the lower recess 220b/220c is to reduce the surface contact of the molding layer 200 with the connection structures 210, and to reduce the distance between the redistribution layer 100 (see, e.g., Chun: par. [0047]) and the gap-fill insulating layer 300 to increase demand for smaller electronic components (see, e.g., Chun: par. [0004]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a first lower recess at an interface between the first molding layer and at least one of the connection structures of Chun in the device of Jang in view of Chen, in order to is to reduce the surface contact of the molding layer with the connection structures, and to reduce the distance between the redistribution layer and the gap-fill insulating layer to increase demand for smaller electronic components.
Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) that the first lower recess 220b/220c exposing an uppermost side of the at least one of the connection structures 210.
Regarding claim 2, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) that a vertical thickness of the first insulting layer 114’ is smaller than a vertical thickness of the lower redistribution insulating layer 130B.
However, the differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the mentioned thicknesses, and Chen has identified such thickness of the leads as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0015]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) that the first insulating layer 104 comprises a non-photo-imageable dielectric (see, e.g., Jang: par. [0052]). Also, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) that the lower redistribution insulating layer 130B comprises a photo-imageable dielectric (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0019], where the elements of phenol resin, benzocyclobutene (BCB), and polybenzooxazole (PBO) are photo-imageable dielectrics).
Regarding claim 5, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) that a glass transition temperature of the first insulating layer 114’ is higher than a glass transition temperature of the lower redistribution insulating layer 130B (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0014] and [0019]) (for example, the first insulating layer 114’ is made of polybenzooxazole (PBO), and lower redistribution insulating layer 130B is made of benzocyclobutene (BCB)).
However, the differences in the glass transition temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned glass transition temperature, and Chen has identified such glass transition temperature as a result-effective variable subject to optimization (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0014] and [0019]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these glass transition temperature values in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun.
Regarding claim 6, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) that a 5 % weight loss temperature of the first insulating layer 114’ is higher than a 5 % weight loss temperature of the lower redistribution insulating layer 130B (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0014] and [0019]) (for example, the first insulating layer 114’ is made of polybenzooxazole (PBO), and lower redistribution insulating layer 130B is made of benzocyclobutene (BCB)).
However, the differences in the 5% weight loss temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned 5% weight loss temperature, and Chen has identified such 5% weight loss temperature as a result-effective variable subject to optimization (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0014] and [0019]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these 5% weight loss temperature values in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun.
Regarding claim 7, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) that:
A second lower recess (opposite element to the element 220b/220c with respect to the connection structure 210) at the top surface of the first molding layer 200
the second lower recess overlaps the first semiconductor chip 20 in the vertical direction
the first insulating layer 300 at least partially fills the second lower recess of the first molding layer 200
Regarding claim 26, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) that an upper surface 220a of the first lower recess is coplanar with an upper surface of the connection structure 210.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in further view of Wakizaka (JP 3952560 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) most aspects of the instant invention including the first insulating layer 104 on the first molding layer 103.
However, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun fails (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) to show that a viscosity of the first insulating layer is in a range from about 1000 cP to about 2000 cP. Wakizaka, in a similar insulating layer used for a semiconductor device to Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun, shows an insulating layer that has a viscosity of 20 P (or 20 Poise) (that is 2000 cP or centiPoise) or less (see, e.g., Wakizaka: par. [0059]). Wakizaka also shows that the film with this viscosity has handling and process advantages such as that this film can be stretched after molding (see, e.g., Wakizaka: par. [0059] – [0060]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the viscosity of the insulating film of Wakizaka in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun, in order to bring handling and process advantages such as an insulating layer that can be stretched after molding.
However, the differences in the viscosity will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned viscosity, and Wakizaka has identified such viscosity as a result-effective variable subject to optimization (see, e.g., Wakizaka: par. par. [0059] – [0060]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in further view of Lu (US 2019/0363064).
Regarding claim 8, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chen: figs. 3-4) most aspects of the instant invention including the at least one lower recess Rc1/Rc2 that is formed on the upper surface 108-1 of the insulating encapsulant 108′. Jang in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Chen: figs. 3-4) that the one lower recess Rc1/Rc2 at the top of the first molding layer 108’.
Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) a first insulating layer 300 that comprises at least one upper recess RS2.
However, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun fails (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) to show that the lower redistribution insulating layer fills the at least one upper recess RS2. Lu, in a similar device to Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun, shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 1) the lower redistribution insulating layer 12a fills the at least one upper recess (see, e.g., Lu: par. [0023]). Lu also shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 1) that a first upper recess that is at an interface between the first insulating layer 12b and each of the connection structures 13 is to expose the conductive pillar 13 for providing electrical connections (see, e.g., Lu: par. [0028]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the recess filled with the redistribution insulating layer of Lu in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun, in order to expose the connection structures for providing electrical connections.
Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Lu shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 1) that a first lower recess that is at an interface between the first molding layer 12c and each of the connection structures 13.
Regarding claim 9, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Lu shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 1) that the at least one upper recess overlaps with the at least one lower recess in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 10, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Lu shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 1) a length in a horizontal direction of the at least one upper recess, a length in the horizontal direction of the at least one lower recess, a length in the vertical direction of the at least one upper recess, and a length in the vertical direction of the at least one lower recess that overlaps with the at least one upper recess in the vertical direction.
Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Lu shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 1) that a length in a horizontal direction of the at least one upper recess is equal to a length in the horizontal direction of the at least one lower recess, and a length in the vertical direction of the at least one upper recess is equal to a length in the vertical direction of the at least one lower recess that overlaps with the at least one upper recess in the vertical direction
Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Lu shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 1) fails to show that a length in a horizontal direction of the at least one upper recess is smaller than a length in the horizontal direction of the at least one lower recess that overlaps with the at least one upper recess in the vertical direction, and wherein a length in the vertical direction of the at least one upper recess is smaller than a length in the vertical direction of the at least one lower recess that overlaps with the at least one upper recess in the vertical direction
However, the differences in the lengths in a horizontal direction and in a vertical direction of the at least one upper recess and of one lower recess will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned lengths, and Chen and Lu has identified such viscosity as a result-effective variable subject to optimization (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0013] and [0016], and see, e.g., Lu: par. [0028]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Lu.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in further view of Yu (US 2019/0115311).
Regarding claim 11, Jang in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) most aspects of the instant invention including the first insulating layer 104 on the first molding layer 103, and a second redistribution structure 105.
However, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun fails (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1, and see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) to show that the second redistribution structure 105 further comprises a lower redistribution via passing through the first insulating layer 103 and the lower redistribution insulating layer (the lower redistribution insulating layer is part of element 105). Yu, in a similar device to Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun, shows (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 2I) that the second redistribution structure 12/78/71 comprises a lower redistribution via 76/49 passing through the first insulating layer 12 and the lower redistribution insulating layer 78 (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0051]). Yu also shows that the lower redistribution via 76/49 passing through the first insulating layer 12 and the lower redistribution insulating layer 78 is to expose a portion of the TIV 24 for electrically coupling the package structure (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0051]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the lower redistribution via of Yu passing through the first insulating layer and the lower redistribution insulating layer in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun, in order to expose a portion of the TIV for electrically coupling the package structure.
Regarding claim 12, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Yu shows (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 2I) that a horizontal width of the lower redistribution via 76/49 decreases toward the connection structures 24.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2021/0020505) in view of Chen (US 2020/0118960) in view of Chun (US 2021/0090984) in further view of Yu (US 2019/0115311).
Regarding claim 18, Jang shows (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor package 10, comprising:
A first redistribution structure 100
A first semiconductor chip 101 on the first redistribution structure 100
A first molding layer 103 on the first redistribution structure 100, the first molding layer 103 being disposed on the first semiconductor chip 101
Connection structures 102 on the first redistribution structure 101, the connection structures 102 extending in a vertical direction and passing through the first molding layer 103
A first insulating layer 104 on the first molding layer 103
A second redistribution structure 105
However, Jang fails (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) to show that the molding layer 103 comprises a second lower recess at the top surface. Chen, in a similar device to Jang, shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 3) that the molding layer 108’ comprises a second lower recess Rc1/Rc2 at the top surface (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0013]). Chen also shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 3) that, after grinding and polishing, at least one lower recess Rc1/Rc2 is formed on the upper surface 108-1 of the insulating encapsulant 108′ and recesses are randomly formed on the upper surface 108-1 of the insulating encapsulant 108′, and the recesses are to improve the adherence of the insulating layer 114 formed on the top of the insulating encapsulant 108’ by filling the recesses with the insulating material 114 (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0013] and [0016]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the lower recesses of Chen in the device of Jang, in order to improve the adherence of the insulating layer formed on the top of the insulating encapsulant by filling the recesses with the insulating layer material.
Jang in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) that the second redistribution structure 130 comprises a lower redistribution insulating layer 130B on the first insulating layer 114.
Also, Jang in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 4) that the first insulating layer 114 at least partially fills the at least second lower recess Rc1/Rc2 of the first molding layer 108’.
Jang in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) that the first insulating layer 104 comprises a non-photo-imageable dielectric (see, e.g., Jang: par. [0052]). Also, Jang in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) that the lower redistribution insulating layer 130B comprises a photo-imageable dielectric (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0019], where the elements of phenol resin, benzocyclobutene (BCB), and polybenzooxazole (PBO) are photo-imageable dielectrics).
However, Jang in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Chen: figs. 3-4) to show that the first lower recess exposing an uppermost side of the at least one of the connection structures.
Chun, in a similar device to Jang in view of Chen, shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) the first lower recess 220b/220c exposing an uppermost side of the at least one of the connection structures 210. Also, Chun shows that the distance between the lowest point LP of the first inclined surface 220c and the lower protective layer 100 is shorter than the distance between the second upper surface 220b of the first insulating layer 220 and the lower protective layer 100 components (see, e.g., Chun: par. [0034]). That is, the first inclined surface 220c is a surface extending downward from the second upper surface 220b. The first inclined surface 220c extend from the second upper surface 220b toward the lower protective layer 100. The distance from the lower protective layer 100 to the lowest point LP of the first inclined surface 220c may be, for example, 0.5 to 1 times the distance from the lower protective layer 100 to the first upper surface 220a components (see, e.g., Chun: par. [0034]). Chun shows that the lower recess 220b/220c is to reduce the surface contact of the molding layer 200 with the connection structures 210, and to reduce the distance between the redistribution layer 100 (see, e.g., Chun: par. [0047]) and the gap-fill insulating layer 300 to increase demand for smaller electronic components (see, e.g., Chun: par. [0004]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first lower recess exposing an uppermost side of the at least one of the connection structures of Chun in the device of Jang in view of Chen, in order to is to reduce the surface contact of the molding layer with the connection structures, and to reduce the distance between the redistribution layer and the gap-fill insulating layer to increase demand for smaller electronic components.
Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) that the first insulating layer 300 at least partially fills the first lower recess 220b/220c exposing an uppermost side of the at least one of the connection structures 210.
However, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun fails (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1, and see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) to show that the second redistribution structure 105 further comprises a lower redistribution via passing through the first insulating layer 103 and the lower redistribution insulating layer (the lower redistribution insulating layer is part of element 105). Yu, in a similar device to Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun, shows (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 2I) that the second redistribution structure 12/78/71 comprises a lower redistribution via 76/49 passing through the first insulating layer 12 and the lower redistribution insulating layer 78 (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0051]). Yu also shows that the lower redistribution via 76/49 passing through the first insulating layer 12 and the lower redistribution insulating layer 78 is to expose a portion of the TIV 24 for electrically coupling the package structure (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0051]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the lower redistribution via of Yu passing through the first insulating layer and the lower redistribution insulating layer in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun, in order to expose a portion of the TIV for electrically coupling the package structure.
Regarding claim 19, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Yu shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 8) that a vertical thickness of the first insulting layer 114’ is smaller than a vertical thickness of the lower redistribution insulating layer 130B.
However, the differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned thicknesses, and Chen has identified such thickness of the leads as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0015]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Yu.
Regarding claim 20, Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun in view of Yu shows (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 1) that the connection structures comprise a conductive pillar comprising copper (see, e.g., Jang: par. [0046]).
Response to Arguments
The examiner considered the Applicants’ arguments, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The applicants argue:
Jang in view of Chen fails to show that “the at least one lower recess comprises a first lower recess at an interface between the first molding layer and at least one of the connection structures, the first lower recess exposing an uppermost side of the at least one of the connection structures”.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, Chun, in a similar device to Jang in view of Chen, shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) the at least one lower recess 220b/220c comprises a first lower recess 220b/220c at an interface between the first molding layer 200 and at least one of the connection structures 210.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a first lower recess at an interface between the first molding layer and at least one of the connection structures of Chun in the device of Jang in view of Chen, in order to is to reduce the surface contact of the molding layer with the connection structures, and to reduce the distance between the redistribution layer and the gap-fill insulating layer to increase demand for smaller electronic components.
Jang in view of Chen in view of Chun shows (see, e.g., Chun: fig. 4) that the first lower recess 220b/220c exposing an uppermost side of the at least one of the connection structures 210.
The applicants argue:
Office Action asserts incorrectly that the limitations directed to viscosity (claim 4), glass transition temperature (claim 5), and 5% weight loss temperature (claim 6) are merely result-effective variables that would have been obvious to optimize under in re Aller.
The examiner responds:
In the limitations that are directed to viscosity (claim 4), glass transition temperature (claim 5), and 5% weight loss temperature (claim 6), the viscosity, glass transition temperature, and weight loss temperature are parameters, and their parameter relationships are ranges. Thus, differences in parameter values (or their ranges) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The criticality of these parameters and their relationships (or ranges) must be shown by the Applicant with data, graphs, or tables. Also, Examiner discloses motivations (of combining the secondary Chen reference with the primary Jang reference) to choose those materials to achieve a particular viscosity relationship, Tg hierarchy, or comparative thermal stability (see par. 31, 8, respectively).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights