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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/472,309 filed on 18/472,309.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
The term “boundary region” renders the scope of claim 1 unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a boundary region” in line 13. A “region” implies a defined area or volume having spatial extent. However, the claim does not define any area, space, or intermediate portion existing between the die and the mold material layer. Instead, the claim language and the specification consistently describe the die as being embedded in and in direct contact with the mold material layer. How can there be a “region” between the die and the mold material when the die and mold material are in direct contact?
Further, review of the specification and drawings fails to disclose or illustrate any region between the die and the mold material layer. The figures depict the die and the mold material layer as directly abutting one another, without any intervening space, layer, or defined boundary area. Thus, no identifiable boundary region is shown, described, or otherwise supported by the written disclosure.
Because the claim requires the reinforcing structure to be positioned at a “boundary region” that is neither defined in the claim nor disclosed in the specification or drawings, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine where such a region exists, how it is spatially distinguished from the die or the mold material layer, or how the reinforcing structure is positioned relative thereto.
For purposes of examination the term “boundary region” is the boundary between die (120) and the very left side of the mold material (140) as can be seen in the Examiner’s Mark-up below in claim 1.
Accordingly, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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, 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2018/0315674 to Chen et al. (Chen) in view of US Pub # 2016/0211206 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chen discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 1: 100) comprising:
a die (Fig. 1: 120);
a mold material layer (Fig. 1: 140) in which the die (120) is embedded in a state where an electrode surface (120c, ¶0021) of the die (120) is exposed from a surface of the mold material layer (140;); and
a redistribution layer (Figs. 8-9: 150) provided on a surface of the mold material layer (140) and having an insulating layer (Fig. 8: 150p1 and ¶0027) and a wiring (Fig. 8: 150m2) and ¶0027) in a multilayer state (¶0021 or ¶0027 for multilayer state), as a fan out wafer level package (¶0021), wherein
the semiconductor device (Fig. 1: 100) further has a reinforcing structure (see Fig. 8: conductive layer 150m1 of the redistribution layer 150 is presently considered to be a reinforcing structure, see Examiner’s Mark-up below) made of a material (the reinforcing structure 150m1 include at least a sputter seed layer (¶0021) harder than the insulating material (insulating material is photosensitive, ¶0021), on the insulating layer (Fig. 8: 150p1, see Examiner’s Mark-up below) of the redistribution layer (150),
the reinforcing structure (Fig. 8: 150m1) is located between the wiring (150m2, see Examiner’s Mark-up below) and a surface of the mold material layer (140), and
the reinforcing structure (150m1, see Examiner’s Mark-up below) is at a position corresponding to a boundary region (see the 112 2nd rejection above and also see the Examiner’s Mark-up below) between the die (120, see Examiner’s Mark-up below) and the mold material layer (140, see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Even though Chen discloses that the material for the reinforcing structure (150m1) include at least a sputter seed layer (¶0021) and the material for the insulating layer is photosensitive layer (¶0021). However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose the specific material of the sputter seed layer for the reinforcing structure.
Lee teaches it was known in the art to use the sputter seed layer such as copper to form the redistribution layer (RDL, ¶0091) (this is analogous to applicant’s own reinforcing structure material) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected copper for the undisclosed metal as mere selection of an art recognized metal suitable for the intended use of Chen (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the reinforcing structure (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) has a via (see Examiner’s Mark-up above in claim 1) inside the redistribution layer (150).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the reinforcing structure (see Examiner’s Mark-up above in claim 1) is located at a position separated from a surface of the mold material layer (140) via an insulating layer (see Examiner’s Mark-up above in claim 1) in the redistribution layer (150).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses wherein the redistribution layer (150) includes a ground plane (see Examiner’s Mark-up above in claim 1 and ¶0016) for noise suppression, and the reinforcing structure (see Examiner’s Mark-up above in claim 1) is made of the ground plane whose thickness is partially increased at a position corresponding to a boundary region of the wiring between the die (120) and the mold material layer (140).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses wherein the reinforcing structure is provided at a part of the wiring arranged in the redistribution layer (see Examiner’s Mark-up above in claim 1) so as to intersect a boundary region between the die (120) and the mold material layer (140).
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)(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub # 2024/0038701 to Kuo et al. (Kuo).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kuo discloses a semiconductor device (see Fig. 4K with respect to Fig. 4F) comprising:
a die (Fig. 4F: 101);
a mold material layer (Fig. 4F: 105) in which the die is embedded in a state where an electrode surface (405, ¶0061) of the die (101) is exposed from a surface of the mold material layer (105); and
a redistribution layer (Fig. 4F: 103) provided on a surface of the mold material layer (105) and having an insulating layer and a wiring in a multilayer state (see Examiner’s Mark-up below), as a fan out wafer level package (¶0021), wherein
the semiconductor device further has a reinforcing structure (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) made of a material harder than the insulating layer, on the insulating layer (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) of the redistribution layer (103),
the reinforcing structure (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) is located between the wiring (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) and a surface of the mold material layer 105), and
the reinforcing structure (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) is at a position corresponding to a boundary region (see the 112 2nd rejection above and also see the Examiner’s Mark-up below) between the die (101) and the mold material layer (105).
PNG
media_image2.png
632
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2023/0170258 to Huang et al., US Pub # 2021/0057352 to Agarwal et al., US Pub # 2017/0098588 to Yang et al., US Pub # 2024/0203925 to Chiu et al. and US Pat # 9,859,233 to Fan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896