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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein at least one of the first or second cavity has a tapered side wall extending from the first or second opening to the one or more surfaces” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 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(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, “wherein at least one of the first or second cavity has a tapered side wall extending from the first or second opening to the one or more surfaces” was not described in the specification. The specification describes studs with tapered sidewalls (paragraph [0025], FIG. 5) but does not show or discuss at least one of the first or second cavity has a tapered side wall extending from the first or second opening to the one or more surfaces of the one or more semiconductor dies.
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 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, 5-9, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan (US Pub. No. 2021/0399157) in view of Lee (US Pub. No. 2006/0017148, provided by Applicant in the 2/5/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses a packaged integrated circuit (IC), comprising: a PCB (paragraph [0040]); one or more semiconductor dies (100 and 101, paragraph [0031]) affixed on an upper surface of the PCB (surface in which the dies are placed is part of the upper surface, paragraph [0033] and [0035]), the one or more semiconductor dies including a first circuit (101) and a second circuit (100); and a molding compound (212, paragraph [0052]) encapsulating at least parts (the topmost surfaces) of the PCB and the one or more semiconductor dies, the molding compound having an external surface and including a first cavity (filled by 302) over the first circuit and a second cavity (filled by 308) over the second circuit, the first cavity extending from a first opening in the external surface to one or more surfaces of the one or more semiconductor dies, the second cavity extending from a second opening in the external surface to the one or more surfaces of the one or more semiconductor dies, the first opening having at least a same footprint as the first cavity (interpreted as having a bottom width or footprint that is within or the same as the opening width), the second opening having at least a same footprint as the second cavity (interpreted as having a bottom width or footprint that is within or the same as the opening width), the first circuit exposed in the first cavity or covered by a first material that fills the first cavity, and the second circuit exposed in the second cavity over covered by a second material that fills the second cavity.
Luan appears not to explicitly disclose that the PCB is a lead frame.
In paragraph [0065], Lee discloses a similar device having a semiconductor die mounted on a lead frame and further discloses that a printed circuit board and a lead frame are equivalent structures suitable for mounting semiconductor die in a package. As evidenced by Lee, the semiconductor art recognized that that a printed circuit board and a lead frame are equivalent structures suitable for mounting semiconductor die in a package. According to well established patent law precedent (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.06 Il), therefore, it 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 to substitute a lead frame for a PCB as they are equivalents known for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 2, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses that the one or more semiconductor dies include a first semiconductor die and a second semiconductor die, the first circuit is in the first semiconductor die, and the second circuit is in the second semiconductor die.
Regarding claim 5, insofar as understood, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses that the first circuit includes a light transmitter (101, paragraph [0031]), and the second circuit includes a light receiver (100, paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses that the first circuit includes a transmitter (101, paragraph [0031]), and the second circuit includes a receiver (100, paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses that at least one of the first circuit and second circuit is part of a proximity sensor (paragraphs [0003] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses that the proximity sensor is calibrated to determine relative positions between the first and second circuits (the structure disclosed by Luan is capable of being used in this manner, the recitation does not impart any structure).
Regarding claim 9, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses that the molding compound provides a barrier between the first and second cavities.
Regarding claim 11, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses that each of the first and second cavities have a respective polygon footprint (rectangular).
Regarding claim 12, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses wire bonds (211, paragraph [0051]) coupled (electrically) between the one or more semiconductor dies and the lead frame, and the wire bonds are encapsulated (laterally) by the molding compound.
Regarding claim 13, in FIGs. 3A-3B, 7C, Luan discloses one or more optical components (302/308) aligned with the first and second cavities.
Regarding claim 14, the process limitation of “the first and second cavities are formed by sacrificial studs” invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Anticipation of claim 14 does not require the first and second cavities are formed by sacrificial studs, but simply that the first and second cavities are formed, as disclosed by Luan.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Luan and Lee appears not to explicitly disclose a die structure attached to the lead frame, wherein the one or more semiconductor dies are attached to a surface of die structure opposing the lead frame.
However, Lee discloses (see FIG. 13) an unlabeled die structure attached to the lead frame (51), wherein one or more semiconductor dies (55) are attached to a surface of die structure opposing the lead frame to be suitable for attaching a die to a lead frame.
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, 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 to have formed a die structure attached to the lead frame, wherein the one or more semiconductor dies are attached to a surface of die structure opposing the lead frame for its recognized suitability in attaching a die to a lead frame.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan (US Pub. No. 2021/0399157) in view of Lee (US Pub. No. 2006/0017148, provided by Applicant in the 2/5/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gani (US Pub. No. 2017/0287886).
Regarding claim 4, Luan discloses that the first and second materials include optically transmissive materials (paragraph [0056]).
Luan appears not to explicitly disclose that the first and second materials each include a plastic material.
The art however well recognized transparent epoxy (or “plastic material”) to be suitable for use as an optically transmissive material. See, for example, Gani, paragraph [0030], FIG. 2, element 220.
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, 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 to have formed the first and second materials from transparent epoxy for its recognized suitability as an optically transmissive material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 (“Reply”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objections to the drawings and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant contends:
As properly identified by the Office, FIG. 5 shows that sacrificial "[s]tuds 520 and 540 are circular-shaped with tapered sides, such that the top surface of the studs is larger than the bottom surface." This Application, [0025] and FIG. 5. As such, a cavity formed by removing a tapered sacrificial stud after encapsulation as described in, for example, FIGS. 2 and 3, would have a tapered side wall extending from a top opening to a bottom surface. Therefore, features of claim 10 are shown or described in one or more figures as filed, and one of ordinary in the art would understand the claimed subject matters in view of the drawings and specification as filed in this Application. (see page 5 of the Reply)
This argument is not persuasive. The specification describes studs with tapered sidewalls (paragraph [0025], FIG. 5) but does not show or discuss at least one of the first or second cavity having a tapered side wall extending from the first or second opening to the one or more surfaces of the one or more semiconductor dies. Nothing in the specification describes or shows how such tapered studs would be placed to achieve a tapered side wall extending from the first or second opening to the one or more surfaces of the one or more semiconductor dies. Similarly nothing in the specification describes or shows how such a stud would be oriented on the one or more semiconductor dies or how a thickness of such a stud compares to the thickness of the molding compound.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 over the prior art, Applicant contends:
Luan fails to teach at least these features of claim 1. For example, in Luan, "The substrate 102 includes an opening 118 for receiving the light emitter The light emitter 101….The light emitter 101 is positioned within the opening 118." See, e.g., Luan, [0035] & [0036]. Other references cited in the Office Action are not alleged to teach or suggest these features of claim 1, and thus do not cure the deficiencies of Luan with respect to claim 1. (see page 7 of the Reply)
This argument is not persuasive. In paragraph [0035] Luan discloses that “the opening 118 may have an end that terminates within the substrate 102 before reaching the second surface 106” making it similar to the recess in the first surface of the substrate in which the light sensor is embedded (paragraph [0033]). The claimed “an upper surface” is broad enough to include surface 104 and its recessed portions. As such, the combination of Luan and Lee is commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In FIGs. 1-2, US Pub. No. 2011/0226952 discloses a similar device having tapered sidewalls (110) above a light emitting die (111).
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 TUCKER J WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3234. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-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, 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.
/TUCKER J WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891