DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions - NO TRAVERSE
A restriction requirement was mailed on 10/29/25
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (method claims) and species A (Figs. 1, 3-22) in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. Claims 10-11 and 13-20 are withdrawn.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Encapsulating semiconductor chips using masks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2003-069196 (“Akiyama”) (see document, including English translation, provided by Applicant on 1/21/26).
Akiyama teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
528
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Akiyama teaches:
1. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
placing a first semiconductor element (e.g. “electronic components 2” which may be e.g. “chip resistors, chip capacitors, and transistors”, see e.g. Fig. 1A and para 17) on a wiring board (e.g. “mounting substrate 1”, which is well-known to be equivalent in terminology with a “wiring board”, see e.g. Fig. 1A and para 18);
forming a first mask (e.g. “mask jig 3”, see Fig. 1A) having an opening (e.g. “coating opening 4”, see e.g. Fig. 1A and para 18) on the wiring board so that the first semiconductor element is positioned in the opening;
putting a liquid first resin precursor (e.g. “synthetic resin 6”, see e.g. Fig. 1B and para 20, 22) into the opening of the first mask;
curing the first resin precursor to obtain a first resin layer (see e.g. para 23, wherein heating to 70-100 degrees C is performed to thermoset the resin); and
removing the first mask (see e.g. Fig. 1D and para 24, “the mask jig 3 is removed”).
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the curing of the first resin precursor includes a heating process (see e.g. para 23).
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first resin precursor is fully cured before the removing of the first mask (see e.g. para 23-24).
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first mask is metal (“metal plate”, see e.g. para 18).
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 of this title, 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) 1-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0231984 A1 (“Chen”).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0231984 A1 (“Chen”) in view of JP 2003-069196 (“Akiyama”) (see document, including English translation, provided by Applicant on 1/21/26).
Chen teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
340
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
333
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chen teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, for example:
1. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
placing a first semiconductor element (e.g. “semiconductor die 104”, see e.g. para 16 and Fig. 3) on a wiring board (e.g. “package substrate 102” which is well-known to be equivalent in terminology with a “wiring board”, see e.g. Fig. 3 and para 16);
forming a first mask (e.g. “dummy blocks 402”, see e.g. Fig. 4 and para 43; the blocks act as a mask during the process of Figs. 4-6, so it is reasonably interpreted as a “first mask”) having an opening (e.g. area between adjacent 402s) on the wiring board so that the first semiconductor element is positioned in the opening;
putting a liquid first resin precursor (e.g. “molding compound layer 502” which may be “formed of curable materials such as polymer based materials, resin based materials, polyimide, epoxy…”, see e.g. para 49 and Fig. 5) into the opening of the first mask;
removing the first mask (see e.g. para 51 and Fig. 6).
Chen does not explicitly teach curing the first resin precursor to obtain a first resin layer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found this obvious over Chen, because Chen teaches that the material may be “curable materials”, see e.g. para 49. No other type of material is disclosed other than “curable materials”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that if 402 is removed before curing of 502, 502 would still have been liquid and would not be able to retain its shape from Fig. 5. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to cure the “curable materials” before removing 402 at Fig. 6.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As such, claim 1 is obvious over Chen.
Furthermore, Akiyama teaches curing the first resin precursor to obtain a first resin layer (see e.g. para 23, wherein heating to 70-100 degrees C is performed to thermoset the resin). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Akiyama to the invention of Chen. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using known curable materials (see e.g. para 21, 23), and a known curing method using known temperatures (see e.g. para 21, 23), so as to harden the material such that it has a flat top surface that does not require re-shaping (see e.g. para 18, 21, 31-32).
As such, claim 1 is obvious over Chen in view of Akiyama.
Chen and/or Akiyama together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the curing of the first resin precursor includes a heating process (curing is well-known to be performed by heating, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have found this obvious over Chen; furthermore, see the discussion of Akiyama’s heating in the rejection of claim 1).
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first resin precursor is fully cured before the removing of the first mask (see discussion of curing in the rejection of claim 1).
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first mask is metal (see “steel”, para 43 of Chen; see “metal plate”, see e.g. para 18 of Akiyama).
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the liquid first resin precursor is filled into the opening in the first mask by a spin coating method (see e.g. para 50 of Chen).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0231984 A1 (“Chen”) in view of JP 2003-069196 (“Akiyama”) and US 2004/0251777 A1 (“Yamamoto”).
Chen and Akiyama teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the first mask is photoresist.
Yamamoto teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention Chen and Akiyama wherein the first mask is photoresist (see e.g. para 6, 51, 99, 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Yamamoto to the invention of Chen and Akiyama. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using photoresist, which is well-known in semiconductor processing to be used as a mask, as the material for the “dummy blocks 402” of Chen, because they could be formed by photolithography methods, which are ubiquitous in the art, and which are known to serve as a barrier against flowing resin (see e.g. para 6, 51, etc.).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0231984 A1 (“Chen”) in view of JP 2003-069196 (“Akiyama”) and US 2015/0069601 A1 (“Yamaguchi”).
Chen and Akiyama teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the liquid first resin precursor has a viscosity of between 1 Pa-s and 200 Pa-s at 25°C.
Yamaguchi teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Chen and Akiyama that the liquid first resin precursor has a viscosity of between 1 Pa-s and 200 Pa-s at 25°C (see e.g. para 37-38, 83, 91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Yamaguchi to the invention of Chen and Akiyama. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using a viscosity that is “at most 50 Pa-s” and “more preferably at most 5 Pa-s” such that it can easily flow through complicated configurations to avoid forming voids (see e.g. para 38).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0231984 A1 (“Chen”) in view of JP 2003-069196 (“Akiyama”) and US 2013/0049221 A1 (“Han”).
Chen and Akiyama teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach:
(claim 7)
placing a second semiconductor element on the first resin layer after the removing of the first mask;
forming a second mask having an opening on the wiring board so that the first resin layer and the second semiconductor element are positioned in the opening of the second mask;
putting a liquid second resin precursor into the opening of the second mask;
curing the second resin precursor to obtain a second resin layer; and
removing the second mask;
(claim 8)
connecting the second semiconductor element to the wiring board with a bonding wire; or
Han teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Chen and Akiyama:
(claim 7)
placing a second semiconductor element (e.g. one of 11, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, or 24) on the first resin layer (e.g. 50) after the removing of the first mask (while the masking is not taught in Han, the encapsulant 50 on the chip 41 shown in Fig. 19 of Han is an equivalent state to the encapsulant 502 on chip 104 shown in Fig. 6 of Chen, which is after the removal of the mask);
forming a second mask (it would have been obvious to use Chen’s masking again, since it constrains the resin from flow) having an opening on the wiring board so that the first resin layer and the second semiconductor element are positioned in the opening of the second mask;
putting a liquid second resin precursor (e.g. to form material 59, shown in Han’s Fig. 28) into the opening of the second mask;
curing the second resin precursor to obtain a second resin layer (it would have been obvious to cure again, for the same reasons mentioned in the rejection of claims 1); and
removing the second mask (it would have been obvious to remove the mask, as was done with Chen’s first mask 502); and
(claim 8)
connecting the second semiconductor element to the wiring board with a bonding wire (see e.g. 43 and/or 45 in Han).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Han to the invention of Chan and Akiyama. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming a thin, multi-chip package by chip stacking in order to provide multiple functions (see e.g. para 5-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9 is/are 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: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claim 9 (including those of claims 1, 7, 8, and 9), including:
wherein the connecting of the second semiconductor element to the wiring board with the bonding wire occurs before the forming of the second mask.
The prior art does not in combination explicitly teach the timing of forming bond wires in relation to the timing of forming the second mask.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896