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 with respect to the newly amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Manack et al. (US 20220157698 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 9. Manack teaches a method comprising:
providing a die 105 including a sensor 180a;
depositing a ring structure 142 on the die 109, the ring strucure encircling the sensor (Manack ¶20 & Fig. 3A);
depositing a cover 172 on a top of the ring, the cover closing off an open top of the ring thereby forming a cavity 155a inside the ring; placing the die on a substrate 210 (Manack Fig. 2A); forming a mold compound 260 over the die, the ring, and the cover, the mold compound abutting an outer surface of the ring (Manack Fig. 2B).
CLAIM 10. Manack teaches a method of claim 9, wherein prior to forming the mold compound over the die, the ring structure, and the cover, the method further comprises attaching wire bonds 141 from the die to the substrate (Manack figs. 2A-B).
CLAIM 11. Manack teaches a method of claim 9, wherein prior to depositing a ring strucutre on the die, the method further comprises depositing a polymer layer 107on the die (Manack Fig. 2A & ¶18).
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.
Claim(s) 12-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manack et al. (US 20220157698 A1) in view of Van Der Wiel et al. (US 20160159639 A1).
CLAIM 12. Manack teach a method of claim 11, however may be silent upon further comprising depositing a layer on the polymer layer. The inclusion of a layer such as for example a stress relief layer within the seal ring standoff structure of Manack would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention. Manack discloses a metal seal ring standoff disposed on a polymer layer. A PHOSITA would recognize that metal and polymer possess inherently different coefficients of thermal expansion, inevitably inducing stress and strain during thermal cycling. Consequently, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to insert a stress-relief layer between the metal standoff and the polymer layer in Manack to mitigate these adverse effects, even if Manack is silent on the issue.
PNG
media_image2.png
314
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Der Wiel teaches1 (¶[0060]) the known use and benefits of integrating stress-relief layers into seal rings. It is taught “here is a difference in thermal expansion coefficient CTE of the anelastic material 3 and the metal 6. As the CTE of the metal 6 is lower than the CTE of the anelastic material 3, the anelastic material tends to shrink more than the metal (right after bonding), which may cause the anelastic material 3 to disconnect from the substrate 1 and/or from the metal 6, or both. Any forces exerted on the lid 2, would then need to be counteracted entirely by the metal 6, more particularly by the metal-substrate interface. These forces may be too high resulting in cracking of the sealing means.” Modifying Manack 's seal ring to incorporate these known stress-relief layers constitutes the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results—a classic example of obviousness under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
CLAIM 13. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 12 further comprising depositing a metal structure on the layer (Manack Fig. 2B as modified by Van Der Wiel. Incorporating the modification of a stress relief layer between the two layers reduces interfacial strain, utilizing the layer for its primary, intended function will result in the stress relief layer in the claimed location and shown in Fig. 6(a)-(e) of Van Der Wiel.).
CLAIM 14. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 9, however may be silent upon the formation of the seal rings using selective electroplating deposition.
Van Der Wiel, when forming the independent units of Manack , the seal ring structure is known by a PHOSITA to be formed by wherein depositing a ring on the die includes electroplating metal 8, 16, 17 in a vertical direction within a ring shaped opening in a photoresist 15 material layer and electroplating the metal in the vertical direction and a horizontal direction on a surface of the photoresist material layer as the metal exceeds a height of the photoresist material layer (Van Der Wiel Figs. 6(a)-(e) and ¶[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the seal ring pattering technique of Manack with conventual selective electroplating deposition, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 15. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 14. The further limitation of “wherein the metal forms a cylindrical wall of the ring structure and a cap of the ring structure, the cap having a partial circular shape and extending beyond each side of the cylindrical wall,” fails to impart a non-obvious, manipulative distinction over the prior art. The resulting shape is a predictable, inherent consequence of filling the patterned opening. In electroplating, isotropic growth and high current density at the mask edges naturally produce rounded, 'bread-loafed' top surfaces, even if not explicitly described in the prior art. Furthermore, filling a patterned opening inevitably results in a finite amount of overfill and overhang. Such structural features do not differentiate the claimed method from known, practiced techniques. Structural limitations in a method claim only possess patentable weight if they define a distinct, manipulative step; they cannot merely describe the inherent result of using a specific structure [Ex parte Pfieffer, 135 USPQ 31, 33 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1961)]. Patentability must rely on the recited method steps, not on structural results, unless that structure fundamentally changes the process [Leesona Corp. v. U.S., 185 USPQ 156, 165 (Ct. Cl. Trial Div. 1975)]."
CLAIM 16. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel et al. teach a method comprising:
providing a die having an active surface (Manack Fig. 2B- die-105; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – die 1), the die including a sensor (Manack Fig. 2B - sensor-180a; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – sensor 12);
depositing a first layer on the active surface of the die (Manack is silent upon a first layer such as a stress relief layer; Van Der Wiel teaches difference in CTE of materials leads to stress and damage, thus including engineered layers between materials to reduce stress is known and used. As such it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to modify Manack to further include a similar stress layer therebetween. depositing a metal structure (Manack Fig. 2B – 141/142]; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – metal 16); on the first layer (Manack Fig. 2B as modified by Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – stress relief layer 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
630
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Manack fails to disclose the specific steps when electroplating patterning of the metal layers as disclosed in ¶20. However, Van Der Wiel teaches that selective electroplating is a well-known, practiced method for forming such structures. Consequently, it would be obvious for a PHOSITA to employ Van Der Wiel ’s process to form the seal ring in Manack. See Van Der Wiel Figs. 6(a)-(e).), Van Der Wiel teaches depositing a photoresist material layer 15 over the die 1, the photoresist material layer 18 patterned to form a ring shaped opening on the metal structure 16; and electroplating metal 17 on the metal structure 16 in the ring shaped opening to form a metal ring (Van Der Wiel Fig. 6(a)-(e) * ¶[0070]).
Manack further teaches, depositing a cover on a top of the ring, the cover closing off an open top of the ring thereby forming a cavity inside the ring (Manack Fig. 2 B- cover 172; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – sensor 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
638
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Manack further teaches placing the die assembly (ie. 100’ described by Manack Fig. 2B and Van Der Wiel Fig. 3) on a substrate 210 ; and forming a mold compound 260 over the die, the ring, and the cover, the mold compound covering a top surface of the cover (Manack Fig. 2B).
CLAIM 17. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 16, wherein electroplating metal on the metal structure in the ring shaped opening includes electroplating the metal in a vertical direction within the ring shaped opening and electroplating the metal in the vertical direction and a horizontal direction on a surface of the photoresist material layer (Manack ¶20 teaches patterning/depositing by electroplating; Van Der Wiel demonstrates patterning seal rings using conventional selective electroplating.).
CLAIM 18. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 17. The further limitation of “wherein the metal forms a cylindrical wall of the metal ring and a cap of the ring structure, the cap having a partial circular shape and extending beyond each side of the cylindrical wall.” fails to impart a non-obvious, manipulative distinction over the prior art. The resulting shape is a predictable, inherent consequence of filling the patterned opening. In electroplating, isotropic growth and high current density at the mask edges naturally produce rounded, 'bread-loafed' top surfaces, even if not explicitly described in the prior art. Furthermore, filling a patterned opening inevitably results in a finite amount of overfill and overhang. Such structural features do not differentiate the claimed method from known, practiced techniques. Structural limitations in a method claim only possess patentable weight if they define a distinct, manipulative step; they cannot merely describe the inherent result of using a specific structure [Ex parte Pfieffer, 135 USPQ 31, 33 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1961)]. Patentability must rely on the recited method steps, not on structural results, unless that structure fundamentally changes the process [Leesona Corp. v. U.S., 185 USPQ 156, 165 (Ct. Cl. Trial Div. 1975)]."
CLAIM 19. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach teach a method of claim 16, wherein the substrate is a leadframe, the leadframe including a die pad and conductive terminals, wherein the die is placed on the die pad via a die attach material, and wherein prior to placing the die assembly and the substrate in a mold chase, the method further comprising attaching wire bonds from the active surface of the die to the conductive terminals (Manack – Fig. 2B the die assembly is placed on and attached to a lead frame)
CLAIM 20. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 16, wherein prior to depositing a stress relief layer on the active surface of the die, the method further comprising depositing a die polymer layer on the active surface of the die (Manack Fig. 2A- polymer-107; Van Der Wiel Fig. 3 – organic material (i.e. polymer) 3),
CLAIM 21. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 12, wherein the first layer 10 includes a polymer layer or a metal layer 6 (Van Der Wiel Fig. 6(a)-(e) * ¶[0070]).
CLAIM 22. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 13, wherein the ring structure 17 is deposited on the metal structure 6 (Van Der Wiel Fig. 6(a)-(e) * ¶[0070].
CLAIM 23. Manack in view of Van Der Wiel teach a method of claim 16, wherein the first layer includes a polymer layer 10 or a metal layer 6 (Van Der Wiel Fig. 6(a)-(e) * ¶69-70).
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
8/10/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Van Der Wiel - [[0060] FIG. 4A shows the situation for which the organic sealing element 10 is completely covered by the metal 6. Despite the fact that both upright edges 4a, 4b of the ring 10 are inclined with an angle α of about 60°, experiments mimicking use of the device have shown that this structure easily cracks. A possible explanation might be that there is a difference in thermal expansion coefficient CTE of the anelastic material 3 and the metal 6. As the CTE of the metal 6 is lower than the CTE of the anelastic material 3, the anelastic material tends to shrink more than the metal (right after bonding), which may cause the anelastic material 3 to disconnect from the substrate 1 and/or from the metal 6, or both. Any forces exerted on the lid 2, would then need to be counteracted entirely by the metal 6, more particularly by the metal-substrate interface. These forces may be too high resulting in cracking of the sealing means.
Prosecution Insights