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 Arguments
Claim 10 stands rejected under Section 102 while claim 18 stands rejected under Section 103. Claims 1-18 stand rejected under Section 112(b). Claims 1-18 stand objected to for informalities. The specification stands objected to. Claims 1-9 and 11-17 have been indicated as being allowable if the Section 112(b) rejections and informalities were addressed.
Applicants amended claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-17, and provided amendments to the specification. Applicants argue that the application is in condition for allowance.
Turning first to the specification: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted specification objections, but the amendments have not been presented in the proper form, with underlining, strike-through, etc. to indicate where the amendments are. See MPEP § 714(II)(B) (Amendments to the Specification). The specification amendments are not entered. The Office re-states the specification objections.
Claim objections: Applicants’ amendments address most of the claim objections, and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The claim objections that were addressed have been withdrawn. As for the remaining claim objections, the Office has reviewed the claim objections and either re-states the objections or withdraws the objections. Furthermore, applicants introduced informalities in their amendments, which are included below.
Section 112 rejections: Applicants’ amendments overcome the previously noted Section 112 rejections, and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The Section 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, applicants’ amendment to claim 10 forms a basis for a new Section 112(b) rejection, which is noted below.
Section 102 rejection: Applicants’ amendment overcomes the previously noted Section 102 rejection. This rejection is withdrawn.
Section 103 rejection: Applicants’ amendment overcomes the previously noted Section 103 rejections. This rejection is withdrawn.
Updated searches yielded no further prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the claims, or that could be used with previously cited prior art to render obvious the claims. For these reasons, claims 1-18 will be allowable once the specification and claim objections, and the Section 112(b) rejections are addressed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, paragraph 6, line 3 of step (c): Change “at least one an opening” to “at least one opening”. Compare with step (e), line 2.
Page 6, paragraph 26, line 2: Change “it manufactured” to “it is manufactured”.
Page 9, paragraph 42, line 6: After “solder pads”, add “by soldering alloy 14”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10: Change “the bottom side of the lead frame” to “a bottom side of the lead frame”. This provides antecedent basis for this specific “bottom side”.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are objected to for depending from objected-to claim 1.
Claim 4, lines 2-3: Change “the encapsulating process” to “step c)”. Applicants had addressed this informality in other claims, but not in this claim. Unless there is something specific in the encapsulation step of step c) that applicants seek include in this claim, the use of “step c)” should be sufficient.
Claim 11, line 3: Add “at least one” before “semiconductor die”. This makes consistent the reference to “the at least one semiconductor die”.
Claim 12, lines 2-3: Change “the step c) encapsulating” to “step c)”. See the note above regarding claim 4.
Claim 17, lines 2-3: Change “the step c) encapsulating” to “step c)”. See the note above regarding claim 4.
Claim 18, line 4: Change “second terminals” to “second conductive terminals”. This change makes consistent the reference to the “second conductive terminals” earlier in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 10: The newly added language is confusing for various reasons. The claim, as current amended, states the following:
A semiconductor package comprising at least one semiconductor die connected with at least one first conductive terminal surrounded by an encapsulant, wherein the semiconductor package has an upper side and a bottom side, and further comprising a conductive plate on the bottom side connecting the at least one semiconductor die with at least one second conductive terminal, wherein on the bottom side the encapsulant is provided with at least one opening that at least partially is exposing the at least one semiconductor die, and wherein the conductive plate comprises a conductive layer on the bottom side of the encapsulant electrically connecting the at least one semiconductor die via the at least one opening with the exposed portion of the at least one second conductive terminal exposed from the encapsulant by depositing a metallic layer over the at least one second conductive terminal, the at least one opening and over the portion of the encapsulant in between.
(emphasis added).
As currently written, there is no indication that the second conductive terminal is embedded or surrounded by the encapsulant. This leads to a question as to the relationship between the metallic layer, the encapsulant, and the at least one second conductive terminal—is the at least one second conductive terminal embedded in the encapsulant or not such that the metallic layer overlaps the embedded second conductive terminal or is the second conductive terminal in another location that is reached by the metallic layer? The Office includes a proposed amendment to address this.
Next, the language “on the bottom side the encapsulant is provided with at least one opening that at least partially is exposing the at least one semiconductor die” is awkward. The Office also includes a proposed amendment to make the language clearer, including providing antecedent basis for “the bottom side” of the encapsulant.
Third, the language “wherein the conductive plate comprises a conductive layer on the bottom side of the encapsulant electrically connecting the at least one semiconductor die via the at least one opening with the exposed portion of the at least one second conductive terminal exposed from the encapsulant” is likewise awkward. The Office includes a proposed amendment to make the language clearer.
The Office recommends changing lines 6-13 to:
die with at least one second conductive terminal, the at least one second conductive terminal partially embedded in the encapsulant and having an exposed portion, wherein a bottom side of the encapsulant is provided with at least one opening that at least partially exposes the at least one semiconductor die, and wherein the conductive plate comprises a conductive layer on the bottom side of the encapsulant, the conductive layer electrically connecting the at least one semiconductor die via the at least one opening to the exposed portion of the at least one second conductive terminal by depositing a metallic layer over the at least one second conductive terminal, the at least one opening and over a portion of the encapsulant in between.
Claim 18 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 would be allowable if the informalities were addressed.
Claims 10 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and if the informality in claim 18 were addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “c) encapsulating the at least one semiconductor die and the plurality of terminals so that at least a portion of at least one conductive terminal is exposed and an encapsulant is provided on the bottom side with at least one opening that at least partially is exposing the at least one semiconductor die to form the semiconductor package; d) cleaning the bottom side of the semiconductor package; e) partially plating a conductive layer on a bottom side of the encapsulant, electrically connecting the at least one semiconductor die via the at least one opening with the portion of the at least one conductive terminal exposed from the encapsulant and external to the semiconductor package”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 2-9 and 11-17: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 10: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein a bottom side of the encapsulant is provided with at least one opening that at least partially exposes the at least one semiconductor die, and wherein the conductive plate comprises a conductive layer on the bottom side of the encapsulant, the conductive layer electrically connecting the at least one semiconductor die via the at least one opening to the exposed portion of the at least one second conductive terminal by depositing a metallic layer over the at least one second conductive terminal, the at least one opening and over a portion of the encapsulant in between”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 18: The claim has been found allowable due to its dependency from claim 10 above.
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 VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights