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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 and 21-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument that Kim does not teach the limitation “wherein surfaces of the DAF and the die connectors are substantially leveled” is not persuasive because Figure 1A of Kim clearly shows this limitation when considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language. The rejection draws components 204 and 220 of Kim as the die connectors, similar to how the die connectors of the invention have two portions. The top surface of 104 is level with the top surface of the DAF of Kim (Fig.1A 300a of Kim) underneath the semiconductor die (200 of Kim). The claimed language does not require this surface to be the bottom surface of the DAF, so the claim is taught by Kim with this interpretation. Accordingly, the rejection of record is upheld.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 27 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.
Claim 27 recites the limitations "the surface of the DAF". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 recited a broad plurality of surfaces, but not any specific surface which claim 27 appears to be drawn to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US-20220367401-A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a semiconductor package (Fig.1A 1000A; ¶0016), comprising:
a semiconductor die (Fig.1A 200; ¶0017) comprising die connectors (Fig.1A 204 and 220; ¶0030);
a first insulating encapsulant (Fig.1A 400; ¶0017) laterally covering the semiconductor die (200);
a die attach film (DAF) (Fig.1A 300a; ¶0017) overlying the first insulating encapsulant (400) and the semiconductor die (200), the die connectors (204 and 220) being laterally covered by the DAF (300a), wherein surfaces of the DAF (300a) and the die connectors (204 and 220) are substantially leveled (these components are coplanar at the bottom surface of 200); and
a redistribution structure (Fig.1A 100; ¶0017) overlying the DAF (300a) and the semiconductor die (200), the redistribution structure (100) being electrically coupled to the die connectors (204 and 220).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein a portion of the DAF (300a) extends to cover at least a portion of a sidewall of the semiconductor die (200).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein sidewalls of the DAF (300a) and the first insulating encapsulant (400) are substantially leveled (both components have a coplanar surface in Fig.1A).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein a viscosity (lower viscosity of 300a discussed in ¶0080) of the DAF (300a) is lower than that of the first insulating encapsulant (400).
Regarding claim 27, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the surface of the DAF (300a) is connected with and laterally aligned with the surfaces of the die connectors (204 and 220).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1, further comprising:
an interposer (Fig.4 600; ¶0052) disposed on and electrically coupled to the redistribution structure (100).
Kim does not teach a second insulating encapsulant disposed on the redistribution structure and laterally covering the interposer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to encapsulate the interposer (600) with an encapsulant like that of the first insulating encapsulant (400) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of protecting the interposer (600) from the external environment.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 8, wherein the interposer (600) is electrically coupled (¶0025) to the redistribution structure (100) through solder joints (Fig.1A 120; ¶0025).
Claim(s) 5, 21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chang et al. (US-20200303316-A1 – hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor die (200) further comprises a dielectric layer (Fig.1A 210; ¶0028), and an adhesive strength of the DAF with respect to the die connectors is greater than that of the dielectric layer with respect to the die connectors.
Kim does not explicitly teach the dielectric layer laterally covering via portions of the die connectors.
Chang teaches a semiconductor die (Fig.1H 28; ¶0025 of Chang) having connectors (Fig.1H 23 and 25; ¶0025 of Chang) with first portions (23 of Chang) and second portions (25 of Chang), the first portions (23 of Chang) being covered by a dielectric layer (Fig.1H 24; ¶0025 of Chang) and the second portions (25 of Chang) overlying the dielectric layer (24 of Chang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the semiconductor die of Kim (200 of Kim) to have a design like the semiconductor die taught by Chang (28 of Chang) with the die connectors (204 and 220 of Kim) being partially covered by the dielectric layer (210 of Kim) in the lateral direction to arrive at the claimed invention. This change is obvious because it is well-known in the art and a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches a semiconductor package (Fig.1A 1000A; ¶0016), comprising:
a semiconductor die (Fig.1A 200; ¶0017) comprising a dielectric layer (Fig.1A 210; ¶0028) and die connectors (Fig.1A 204 and 220; ¶0030), the die connectors (204 and 220) comprising second portions overlying (204 and 220 are depicted entirely overlying the bottom of 210) a first surface (bottom surface of 210) of the dielectric layer (210);
an insulating encapsulant (Fig.1A 400; ¶0017) surrounding the semiconductor die (200);
an adhesive layer (Fig.1A 300a; ¶0017) surrounding the die connectors (204 and 220), wherein a first surface (bottom surface) of the adhesive layer (300a) is substantially leveled with surfaces of the die connectors (bottom of 204 and 220), and a second surface (top surface) of the adhesive layer (300a) opposite to the first surface (bottom surface) is interfaced with the first surface (bottom surface) of the dielectric layer (210) and a surface of the insulating encapsulant (400); and
a redistribution structure (Fig.1A 100; ¶0017) disposed on the first surface (bottom surface) of the adhesive layer (300a) and the surfaces of the die connectors (204 and 220).
Kim does not teach the die connectors comprising first portions laterally covered by the dielectric layer and connected to the second portions.
Chang teaches a semiconductor die (Fig.1H 28; ¶0025 of Chang) having connectors (Fig.1H 23 and 25; ¶0025 of Chang) with first portions (23 of Chang) and second portions (25 of Chang), the first portions (23 of Chang) being covered by a dielectric layer (Fig.1H 24; ¶0025 of Chang) and the second portions (25 of Chang) overlying the dielectric layer (24 of Chang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the semiconductor die of Kim (200 of Kim) to have a design like the semiconductor die taught by Chang (28 of Chang) with the die connectors (204 and 220 of Kim) being partially covered by the dielectric layer (210 of Kim) in the lateral direction to arrive at the claimed invention. This change is obvious because it is well-known in the art and a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned combination of Kim in view of Chang from claim 21 teaches the semiconductor package of claim 21, wherein:
the semiconductor die (200 of Kim) further comprises a semiconductor substrate (Fig.1A 201; ¶0027 of Kim), and the dielectric layer (210 of Kim) and the die connectors (204 and 220 of Kim) are disposed over the semiconductor substrate (201 of Kim), and a thickness of the adhesive layer (300a of Kim) on a sidewall of the semiconductor die (200 of Kim) decreases in a direction from the dielectric layer (210 of Kim) toward the semiconductor substrate (201 of Kim).
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned combination of Kim in view of Chang from claim 21 teaches the semiconductor package of claim 21, wherein an adhesive strength of the adhesive layer (300a of Kim) with respect to the die connectors (204 and 220 of Kim) is greater (it is presumed that an adhesive layer has a higher strength then a dielectric layer) than an adhesive strength of the dielectric layer (210 of Kim) with respect to the die connectors (204 and 220 of Kim).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kawasaki et al. (US-20150069596-A1 – hereinafter Kawasaki).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 1.
Kim does not teach wherein a density of fillers of the DAF is lower than a density of fillers of the first insulating encapsulant.
Kawasaki teaches silica fillers present in both an underfill resin and an encapsulant resin, where the density of fillers in the underfill resin is lower than a density of fillers in the encapsulant resin (¶0028 of Kawasaki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the silica fillers of Kawasaki (¶0028 of Kawasaki) in the adhesive (300a of Kim) and insulating encapsulant (400 of Kim) in the same relative densities (¶0028 of Kawasaki) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of the adhesive (300a of Kim) having less viscosity than the encapsulant (400 of Kim) and to be easily and smoothly filled (¶0028 of Kawasaki) between the die (200 of Kim) and the redistribution structure (100 of Kim).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chan et al. (US-20140084455-A1 – hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the semiconductor package of claim 8.
Kim does not teach wherein sidewalls of the DAF, the first insulating encapsulant, and the second insulating encapsulant are substantially leveled.
Chan teaches an adhesive layer (Fig.2H 23; ¶0036 of Chan) that is flush with an encapsulating layer (Fig.2H 24; ¶0036 of Chan) at the sidewalls (¶0036 of Chan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the package design of the package taught by Kim (1000A of Kim) so the adhesive (300a of Kim) and insulating encapsulants (400 of Kim) are flush at the sides as taught by Chan (Fig.2H of Chan) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of strengthening the adhesion of the insulating encapsulant (400 of Kim) to the redistribution structure (100 of Kim) by providing more surface area interfacing with the adhesive layer (300a of Kim).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tsao et al. (US-20240178159-A1 – hereinafter Tsao).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a semiconductor package (Fig.1A 1000A; ¶0016), comprising:
a first semiconductor die (Fig.1A 200; ¶0017);
a first insulating encapsulant (Fig.1A 400; ¶0017) laterally surrounding the first semiconductor die (200);
an adhesive layer (Fig.1A 300a; ¶0017) disposed on the first insulating encapsulant (400) and the first semiconductor die (200), where an active surface (bottom surface) of the first semiconductor die (200) is substantially leveled with a top surface of the adhesive layer (300a); and
a redistribution structure (Fig.1A 100; ¶0017) disposed on the adhesive layer (300a) and the active surface (bottom surface) of the first semiconductor die (200), the redistribution structure (100) being electrically coupled to the first semiconductor die (200).
Kim does not teach wherein a rear surface of the first semiconductor die opposite to the active surface is substantially leveled with a bottom surface of the first insulating encapsulant.
Tsao teaches a semiconductor die (Fig.1 101; ¶0031 of Tsao) with a rear surface (Fig.1 101b; ¶0032 of Tsao) that is level with an encapsulant (Fig.1 110; ¶0032 of Tsao).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the semiconductor package of Kim (1000A of Kim) so the top surface of the semiconductor die (200 of Kim) is flush with the top surface of the insulating encapsulant (400 of Kim) as taught by Tsao (Fig.1 of Tsao) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increased heat dissipation off the top surface of the semiconductor die (200 of Kim).
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned combination of Kim in view of Tsao from claim 11 teaches the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein at least a portion of the adhesive layer (300a of Kim) extends to cover a sidewall of the first semiconductor die (200 of Kim) that is connected to the rear surface (top of 200 of Kim).
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned combination of Kim in view of Tsao from claim 11 teaches the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the first semiconductor die (200 of Kim) comprises die connectors (Fig.1A 204 and 220; ¶0030 of Kim) at the active surface (bottom surface of 200 of Kim), and the adhesive layer (300a of Kim) laterally covers each of the die connectors (204 and 220 of Kim).
Regarding claim 14, the aforementioned combination of Kim in view of Tsao from claim 11 teaches the semiconductor package of claim 11, further comprising:
a second semiconductor die (Fig.4 600; ¶0052 of Kim) disposed on and electrically coupled to the redistribution structure (100 of Kim).
The aforementioned combination does not teach a second insulating encapsulant disposed on the redistribution structure and encapsulating the second semiconductor die.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to encapsulate the interposer (600 of Kim) with an encapsulant like that of the first insulating encapsulant (400 of Kim) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of protecting the interposer (600 of Kim) from the external environment.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chang, and further in view of Kuo et al. (US-20220278069-A1 – hereinafter Kuo).
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned combination of Kim in view of Chang from claim 21 teaches the semiconductor package of claim 21.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein an interface of the surface of the insulating encapsulant and a portion of the second surface of the adhesive layer extending to a sidewall of the semiconductor die is a curve surface.
Kuo teaches an adhesive layer (Fig.1D 114; ¶0032) with a curved surface.
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the adhesive layer is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of adhering the semiconductor die to the redistribution structure (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chang, and further in view of Kawasaki.
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned combination of Kim in view of Chang from claim 21 teaches the semiconductor package of claim 21.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the adhesive layer comprises first fillers, the insulating encapsulant comprises second fillers, and a density of the first fillers of the adhesive layer is less than a density of the second fillers of the insulating encapsulant.
Kawasaki teaches silica fillers present in both an underfill resin and an encapsulant resin, where the density of fillers in the underfill resin is lower than a density of fillers in the encapsulant resin (¶0028 of Kawasaki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the silica fillers of Kawasaki (¶0028 of Kawasaki) in the adhesive (300a of Kim) and insulating encapsulant (400 of Kim) in the same relative densities (¶0028 of Kawasaki) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of the adhesive (300a of Kim) having less viscosity than the encapsulant (400 of Kim) and to be easily and smoothly filled (¶0028 of Kawasaki) between the die (200 of Kim) and the redistribution structure (100 of Kim).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chang, and further in view of Chan.
Regarding claim 26, the aforementioned combination of Kim in view of Chang from claim 21 teaches the semiconductor package of claim 21.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein an outer sidewall of the adhesive layer is substantially coplanar with an outer sidewall of the insulating encapsulant.
Chan teaches an adhesive layer (Fig.2H 23; ¶0036 of Chan) that is flush with an encapsulating layer (Fig.2H 24; ¶0036 of Chan) at the sidewalls (¶0036 of Chan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the package design of the package taught by Kim (1000A of Kim) so the adhesive (300a of Kim) and insulating encapsulants (400 of Kim) are flush at the sides as taught by Chan (Fig.2H of Chan) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of strengthening the adhesion of the insulating encapsulant (400 of Kim) to the redistribution structure (100 of Kim) by providing more surface area interfacing with the adhesive layer (300a of Kim).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights