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
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 9, amendment of the claim has resolved the ambiguity of the wording, so the 112(b) rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 102(a) and 103 rejections of the amended claims 1-9, the applicant’s argument that the prior art of the non-final rejection (Chen, Huang, Hong, and Shih) does not anticipate or render obvious the amended claims 1-9 is persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented in view of the new prior art search necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Firstly, claim 1 recites: “wherein the second dielectric layer has a height lowering lower than that of the component so that a contacting surface between the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer is lower than the upper surface of the component;” The word “lowering” does not make grammatical sense in this context, so it is probably a typographical error. It will be assumed that the word “lowering” is meant to be “lower.” In addition, the phrase “so that” suggests purpose, and statements of purpose are not appropriate in device claims. A suggested corrected wording is “wherein the second dielectric layer has a height lower than that of the component, and a contacting surface between the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer is lower than the upper surface of the component;” Appropriate correction is required.
Secondly, claim 1 recites “the second dielectric layer has…” This would be clearer if corrected to “the second dielectric layer comprises…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 1 is 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 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the second dielectric layer has a crawling glue contacting and surrounding…” Crawling glue” is mentioned in the specification but not defined or explained. Since “crawling glue” is not a term used by persons having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductor device fabrication, and since the specification does not clearly define this term, it is unclear what “crawling glue” is. For purposes of examination, “crawling glue” will be assumed to be any encapsulant material. If Applicant believes crawling glue is a common type of glue, please provide support describing this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 is 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. The use of the word “which” in this clause of claim 1, “the second dielectric layer has a crawling glue contacting and surrounding the sides of the component which has a height higher than the height of the second dielectric layer;” leads to ambiguity – does the phrase following the word “which” describe the crawling glue or the component or one of the other nouns? For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that this wording is corrected to: “the second dielectric layer has a crawling glue contacting and surrounding the sides of the component; wherein the component has a height higher than the height of the second dielectric layer.”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. US 20220059520 in view of Katsura et al. US 20170053846.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a package substrate comprising:
a first dielectric layer (figure 5c, 130, [0053]);
a first line layer (figure 5d, 310/400, [0056]) provided on the first dielectric layer (130), the first line layer comprising a dam (310/400);
a second dielectric layer (figure 5g, 140, [0058]) provided on the first dielectric layer and covering the first line layer (See figure 5g, where second dielectric layer 140 covers first dielectric layer 130 and first line layer (310/400);
a component embedded in the second dielectric layer and surrounded by the dam (See figure 5g, where component 200 is embedded in second dielectric layer 140 and surrounded by the dam 310/400 [0058]);
and a third dielectric layer (figure 5i, 600) provided on the second dielectric layer and covering the component (see figure 5i, where photoresist layer 600, comprising a dielectric material [0030], covers the second dielectric layer 140 and component 200).
Chen lacks wherein the second dielectric layer has a height lowering than that of the component so that a contacting surface between the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer is lower than the upper surface of the component; the second dielectric layer has a crawling glue contacting and surrounding the sides of the component which has a height higher than the height of the second dielectric layer; and the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer are different insulating materials.
However, Katsura discloses an analogous device:
wherein the second dielectric layer (figure 22, UF [0090-0091] has a height
the second dielectric layer (figure 22, UF) has a crawling glue (resin UF, that is used for sealing broadly glue type material – [0091]) contacting and surrounding the sides of the component (LC) which has a height higher than the height of the second dielectric layer (UF) – Figure 22 shows that the second dielectric layer comprises a resin UF, contacting and surrounding the sides of the component LC, wherein LC has a height greater than the height of UF. ;
and the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer are different insulating materials (UF is an insulating resin [0091], while 32/31 comprises a resin having improved thermal conductivity because it includes multiple particles with higher thermal conductivity [0210]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the date of filing to make the second dielectric layer and third dielectric layers as described by Katsura in order to seal and protect the electrical connection portions of the package, while also mitigating mechanical stress within the device [0091] and protecting the device from heat damage [0206].
Regarding claim 5, Chen as modified by Katsura discloses the package substrate according to claim 1, wherein the dam comprises at least one opening (see figure 5e, where the dam structure 310/400 comprises opening 230).
Regarding claim 7, Chen as modified by Katsura discloses the package substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer comprises a groove 230, the groove being located within the dam (see figure 5e, where the first dielectric layer comprises groove 230, which is located within the dam 310/400).
Regarding claim 9, Chen as modified by Katsura discloses wherein each of the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer are a single layer or a multilayer structure. (Chen’s third dielectric layer figure 5i, 600, comprises a single photoresist layer 600, and Chen’s second dielectric layer 140 comprises a single layer. Katsura’s third dielectric layer (32/31) comprises a multilayer structure, and Katsura’s second dielectric layer UF comprises a single layer).
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as modified by Katsura as in claim 1, in further view of Hong et al. US 20210057299.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the package substrate according to claim 1.
Chen as modified by Katsura lacks wherein a height of the dam is 5 to 50 μm.
However, Hong discloses a similar semiconductor package wherein the height of the dam is 20-30 μm (Hong [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a dam height of between 20-30 μm to prevent the overflow of encapsulant without making the layer unnecessarily thick and thus causing electrical interference with the electronic component (Hong [0034]).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Chen as modified by Katsura and further modified by Hong discloses the package substrate according to claim 1, with components having the scales in the range of μm (Hong [0056-0062]).
Chen as modified by Katsura and further modified by Hong lacks specifically disclosing [claim 4] wherein a distance between a periphery of the component and the dam is 5 to 500 μm and/or an embedded depth of the component in the dam is equal to or greater than 1 μm and [claim 6] wherein a thickness of the second dielectric layer between the first dielectric layer and the component is 3 to 30 μm.
However, MPEP 2144.04 IV A states:
Changes in Size/Proportion - In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the position of the component relative to [claim 4] the dam (so that the distance between a periphery of the component and the dam is 5 to 500 μm) and [claim 6] the first and second dielectric layers (so that a thickness of the second dielectric layer between the first dielectric layer and the component is 3 to 30 μm) in order to optimize the performance of the package by balancing thermal, electrical, and structural strain factors that depend on this relative positioning (Chiu et al. US 20210125911, [0042]).
Since the second limitation of claim 4 “and/or an embedded depth of the component in the dam is equal to or greater than 1 μm” is part of an alternative “and/or” limitation it is not required that the prior art read on this limitation of the claim as presented.
Regarding claim 8, Chen as modified by Katsura discloses the package substrate according to claim 7.
Chen as modified by Katsura lacks wherein a depth of the groove is equal to or less than 60 μm.
However, Hong discloses a similar semiconductor package wherein the depth of the flow preventing groove is 20-30 μm (Hong [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a groove depth of between 20-30 μm to prevent the overflow of encapsulant without making the groove so deep that the thinning of the layer comprising the groove degrades the rigidity of that layer (Hong [0058]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as modified by Katsura as in claim 1 in further view of Shih et al. US 20170110419.
Regarding claim 3, Chen as modified by Katsura discloses a package substrate according to claim 1.
Chen as modified by Katsura lacks wherein a shape of the dam matches a shape of the component.
However, Shih discloses a similar package substrate with a feature corresponding to the dam disclosed by Chen as modified by Katsura (Chen, figure 5d, element 310/400) – this feature is the ring-shaped supporting feature 460, illustrated in Shih figure 7, which may also function as a dam when molding compound is applied to seal the dies 420a [0036]. Figure 8, which shows a top view of the device of figure 7, shows that the dam structure of Shih (460) has a rectangular shape and that the component (420a) also has a rectangular shape. Thus, Chen as modified by Katsura and further modified by Shih discloses a package substrate wherein the shape of the dam matches the shape of the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include a dam which matches the shape of the component, to act as a supporting feature to avoid warpage and thus reduce the risk of known good die loss [0037].
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 KATRINA M H WALJESKI-MOSES whose telephone number is (571)272-0731. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 7:30 am- 5 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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.
/KATRINA WALJESKI-MOSES/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights