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 Group II, claims 1-15, and Species IV in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) of improper exclusion of claims 4 and 5 from Species III. This is found persuasive, claims 4 and 5 will be examined.
Applicant’s addition of new claims 21-25 have been considered. Claim 21 is a linking claim and will be considered for examination. Claims 22-25, however, share distinct features from the previously elected Group II, Species III and Species IV in that a sidewall of the alignment mark structure has a taper angle in a range from 1 to 20 degrees, a carrier wafer, and lithographically patterning a photoresist layer. An additional search would be required for these features. Claims 22-25 are withdrawn.
For the sake of clarity, claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, and 21 will be considered for examination.
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on 09/12/2024 have been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2019/0035772 A1), hereafter “Huang”.
As to claim 1, Huang teaches a device structure comprising a fan-out package, wherein the fan-out package comprises:
a molding compound die frame (Fig. 2, 120a/120, ⁋ [0019]) laterally surrounding a first semiconductor die (110a/110, ⁋ [0015]); and
an organic interposer (Fig. 4, 140, ⁋ [0021]) comprising redistribution dielectric layers (143) embedding redistribution wiring interconnects (142) and located on a first horizontal surface of the molding compound die frame,
wherein an alignment mark region (Fig. 8+Fig. 12, 150, ⁋ [0026]) including a localized recess region is located within an opening in a second horizontal surface of the molding compound die frame.
As to claim 2, Huang teaches the device structure of Claim 1, wherein the alignment mark region does not have any areal overlap with the first semiconductor die in a plan view along a direction that is perpendicular to the first horizontal surface (Fig. 8 shows no overlap of 150 onto 110).
As to claim 3, Huang teaches the device structure of Claim 1, wherein an alignment mark structure is located within the localized recess region (Fig. 10, 240, ⁋ [0034]).
As to claim 7, Huang teaches the device structure of Claim 3, wherein the alignment mark structure comprises a horizontal surface that is located above a horizontal plane including the second horizontal surface of the molding compound die frame (150 extends to insulating layer 170 making the underfill material deposited into 150 above the second horizontal surface of the molding compound).
As to claim 21, Huang teaches a method of forming a fan-out package, the method comprising:
forming a molding compound matrix (Fig. 2, 120a/120, ⁋ [0019]) laterally surrounding a first semiconductor die (110a/110, ⁋ [0015]), the molding compound matrix having a first horizontal surface (top) and a second horizontal surface (bottom);
disposing an organic interposer (Fig. 4, 140, ⁋ [0021]), including redistribution dielectric layers (143) embedding redistribution wiring interconnects (144), on the first horizontal surface of the molding compound matrix;
forming a localized recess region within an opening in the second horizontal surface of the molding compound matrix (Fig. 8+Fig. 12, 150, ⁋ [0026]), the localized recess region extending from the second horizontal surface toward the organic interposer (150 extends from the second surface towards interposer 140); and
forming an alignment mark structure within the localized recess region (Fig. 10, 240 within 150, ⁋ [0034]), the alignment mark structure being used to align a subsequent component to the fan-out package (⁋ [0029], “Accordingly, another package can be mounted on each of the first packages 100 by performing alignment according to the alignment notch”).
A second 102 rejection for claim 1 has been applied below.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 2022/0285317 A1), hereafter “Yu”.
As to claim 1, a device structure comprising a fan-out package, wherein the fan-out package comprises:
a molding compound die frame (Fig. 1B, 112, ⁋ [0028]) laterally surrounding a first semiconductor die (110, ⁋ [0024]); and
an organic interposer (Fig. 1C, 115, ⁋ [0031]) comprising redistribution dielectric layers (PM1-PM4, ⁋ [0033]) embedding redistribution wiring interconnects (RDL1-RDL4) and located on a first horizontal surface of the molding compound die frame,
wherein an alignment mark region (SR1, Fig. 1F, ⁋ [0039]) including a localized recess region (recess of 121 via) is located within an opening in a second horizontal surface of the molding compound die frame.
As to claim 3, the device structure of Claim 1, wherein an alignment mark structure is located within the localized recess region (121).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, and further in view of Yu.
As to claim 5, Huang teaches the device structure of Claim 3, wherein the alignment mark structure comprises having a variable horizontal cross-sectional area that increases with a vertical distance from a horizontal plane including the first horizontal surface (150 of Fig. 12).
Huang fails to teach wherein the alignment mark structure comprises a dielectric material portion.
Yu teaches a similar device with an underfill layer 126 composed of a dielectric (Fig. 1F, ⁋ [0051], “silica”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the dielectric underfill material of Yu into the device of Huang since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 116344509 A, US 20230275031 A1 used as translation), hereafter “Hu”.
As to claim 4, Yu teaches the device structure of Claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the alignment mark structure comprises a layer stack of a plurality of metallic material layers including at least one horizontal interface thereamongst.
Hu teaches a device in a similar field of endeavor which contain alignment marks (54a, Fig. 3, ⁋ [0033]) which include a plurality of metallic material layers (⁋ [0034], “alignment marks 54 includes a metal region, and may or may not include an adhesion layer”) including at least one horizontal interface (“an adhesion layer underlying and lining the metal region”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the metallic material layers of Hu into the device of Yu in order to increase the contrast of alignment marks relative to the surrounding materials (⁋ [0034]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, and further in view of Faruqui et al. (US 2014/0264951 A1), hereafter “Faruqui”.
As to claim 9, Yu teaches the device structure of Claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the alignment mark structure is spaced from the molding compound die frame by a die attachment film including a polymer matrix layer and an adhesive layer.
Faruqui teaches a device in a similar field of endeavor in which an adhesive layer 230 (⁋ [0040]) is a polymer matrix and can be a combination of several materials mentioned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the adhesive layer teaching of Faruqui to the device of Yu in order to be used as a permanent part of a final package structure, to protect die 202a, impart mechanical strength/warpage resistance, and/or to provide a surface for marking (⁋ [0038]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, and further in view of Lai et al. (US 2023/0136656 A1), hereafter “Lai”.
As to claim 10, Huang teaches a device structure comprising:
a fan-out package that comprises a molding compound die frame (Fig. 2, 120a/120, ⁋ [0019]), at least one a first semiconductor die (110a/110, ⁋ [0015]) that is laterally surrounded by the molding compound die frame, and an organic interposer (Fig. 4, 140, ⁋ [0021]) comprising redistribution dielectric layers (143) embedding redistribution wiring interconnects (142) and located on a first horizontal surface of the molding compound die frame; and
wherein an alignment mark region (Fig. 8+Fig. 12, 150, ⁋ [0026]) including a localized recess region is located within an opening in a second horizontal surface of the molding compound die frame.
Huang fails to teach a packaging substrate that is bonded to bonding structures of the organic interposer.
Lai teaches a similar device with a fan out package that comprises of a packaging substrate (200, Fig. 15, ⁋ [0086]) bonded to an interposer (920, ⁋ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of Lai’s packaging substrate into the device of Huang to act as a bridge connecting the fan out package to the printed circuit board (⁋ [0094]).
As to claim 11, Huang in view of Lai teach the device structure of Claim 10, Huang further comprising an additional semiconductor die (220, Fig. 11, ⁋ [0035]) overlying the fan-out package and attached to the fan-out package.
As to claim 12, Huang in view of Lai teach the device structure of Claim 11, wherein:
the fan-out package comprises through-interposer via (TIV) structures (130, Fig. 10, ⁋ [0014]) that vertically extend through the molding compound die frame (120); and
the additional semiconductor die (220) is bonded to the TIV structures (130) through an array of solder material portions (210, ⁋⁋ [0033], [0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 13, Huang is the closest prior art and fails to teach wherein the alignment mark region has an areal overlap with the additional semiconductor die and does not have any areal overlap with the first semiconductor die.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARNELL HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. 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.
/CARNELL HUNTER III/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893