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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 17, paragraph 61, line 4: Change 224-1 to 226-1. The first solder pad is reference number 226-1. See paragraph 61, line 1.
Page 17, paragraph 61, line 6: Change 224-2 to 226-2. The second solder pad is reference number 226-2. See paragraph 61, line 2.
Page 17, paragraph 62, line 5: Change 214-2 to 215-1. The second plurality of conductive vias is 215-1. See page 16, paragraph 59, line 2.
Page 17, paragraph 63, line 3: Change “the fourth plurality of conductive vias 214-2” to “the fourth plurality of conductive vias 215-2”. Compare with page 17, paragraph 59, line 3 from the top of the page.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0349243, Figures 2-13.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1052
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15: Xu Figures 2-13 disclose a method of manufacturing a chip-scale package, comprising: providing a substrate (100); forming a magnetic sensor integrated circuit (IC) on the substrate (100), wherein the magnetic sensor IC includes: an IC layer stack (203, 204, 205, 206, 207) comprising a plurality of isolation layers (203, 206) and a plurality of conductive layers (205), and a plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements (204) integrated in a sensor area of the IC layer stack; and forming a conductive contact pad (right conductive interconnect (207)) on or integrated at a top of the IC layer stack, wherein the conductive contact pad (right conductive interconnect (207)) is arranged over the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements (204) such that the conductive contact pad (right conductive interconnect (207)) and the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements (204) at least partially vertically overlap. Xu specification ¶¶ 54-97.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 15: Xu discloses that the conductive contact pad (right conductive interconnect (207)) is a last metal layer of the IC layer stack. See Xu Figure 12.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 15: Xu discloses that the conductive contact pad (right conductive interconnect (207)) is formed after integrating the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements (204) in the IC layer stack. See Xu Figures 7-10.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0265291, Figure 2, and further in view of Jenkins, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0326361, Figure 1a.
PNG
media_image3.png
345
373
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
292
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Huang Figure 2 discloses a chip-scale package, comprising: a magnetic sensor integrated circuit (IC) comprising: an IC layer stack (105) comprising a plurality of isolation layers (106) (see Huang Figures 3-4, Huang specification ¶¶ 36, 37) and a plurality of conductive layers (108); and a magnetoresistive sensing element (202) integrated in the IC layer stack (105); and a conductive contact pad (118) arranged on or integrated in the IC layer stack (105), wherein the conductive contact pad (118) is arranged over the magnetoresistive sensing element (202) such that the conductive contact pad (118) and the magnetoresistive sensing element (202) at least partially vertically overlap. Huang specification ¶¶ 28-32. Huang is silent as to the details of the magnetoresistive sensing element.
Jenkins Figure 1a discloses the magnetoresistive sensing element includes a reference layer (122) having a fixed reference magnetization aligned with a magnetization axis, and a magnetic free layer (120) having a magnetically free magnetization, and wherein the magnetically free magnetization is variable in a presence of an external magnetic field. Jenkins specification ¶¶ 70-76. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Huang to replace the Huang magnetoresistive sensing element with the Jenkins magnetoresistive sensing element because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Huang discloses at least one isolation layer (one of the isolation layers of dielectric structure (106)) of the IC layer stack (105) is arranged vertically between the conductive contact pad (118) and the magnetoresistive sensing element (202, as modified by Jenkins). See Huang Figure 2.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 2: Huang discloses the IC layer stack (105) comprises a conductive pillar (uppermost via (110)) coupled to the conductive contact pad (118) and a conductive layer (uppermost layer (108)) of the plurality of conductive layers (108), wherein the conductive pillar (uppermost via (110)) vertically extends through the at least one isolation layer (uppermost layer or layers (106) covering magnetoresistive sensing element (202)), between the conductive contact pad (118) and the conductive layer (uppermost layer (108)), and wherein the conductive pillar (uppermost via (110)) is laterally offset from the magnetoresistive sensing element (202). See id. To the extent that the interconnect vias (110) are not the same as a conductive pillar, the difference is due to the shape or the manner in which the pillar or via are made and are thus not patentably significant. As to the shape, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). As to the process by which a pillar or a via is made, the process limitation of how a layer is formed has no patentable weight in claims drawn to structure. Note that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, not the process by which the product is made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 n. 3 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523, 525 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 325-26 (CCPA 1974); In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161, 166-67 (CCPA 1975); In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, 103 (CCPA 1976); and In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (Fed. Cir. 1983), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product-by-process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product-by-process claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, according to case law.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1: Huang discloses the conductive contact pad (118) is electrically coupled to the magnetoresistive sensing element (202) by one or more conductive layers (108) of the plurality of conductive layers (108). See Huang Figure 2.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8: Huang discloses the IC layer stack (105) comprises a plurality of conductive vias (110) that connect the conductive contact pad (118) to the one or more conductive layers (108), wherein the plurality of conductive vias (110) extend vertically into the IC layer stack (105), and wherein the plurality of conductive vias (110) are arranged laterally offset from the magnetoresistive sensing element (202). See id.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 8: Huang discloses the IC layer stack (105) comprises a conductive pillar (110) that connects the conductive contact pad (118) to the one or more conductive layers (108), wherein the conductive pillar (110) extends vertically into the IC layer stack (105) from the conductive contact pad (118), and wherein the conductive pillar (110) is arranged laterally offset from the magnetoresistive sensing element (202). See id. To the extent that the interconnect vias (110) are not the same as a conductive pillar, the difference is due to the shape or the manner in which the pillar or via are made and are thus not patentably significant. As to the shape, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). As to the process by which a pillar or a via is made, the process limitation of how a layer is formed has no patentable weight in claims drawn to structure. Note that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, not the process by which the product is made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 n. 3 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523, 525 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 325-26 (CCPA 1974); In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161, 166-67 (CCPA 1975); In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, 103 (CCPA 1976); and In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (Fed. Cir. 1983), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product-by-process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product-by-process claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, according to case law.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 8: Huang discloses the conductive contact pad (118) is configured to supply a current to the magnetoresistive sensing element (200). See id.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1: Huang discloses the conductive contact pad (118) is an uppermost conductive layer of the IC layer stack (105). See Huang specification ¶ 17 (“In other embodiments, portions of the interconnect dielectric structure 106 at least partially surround outer sidewalls of the bond pad 118.”)
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Jenkins, and further in view of Pietambaram, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0110422, Figure 2.
PNG
media_image5.png
222
389
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1: This rejection looks at Huang in two different ways.
First: Huang discloses a solder (124) arranged on the conductive contact pad (118), wherein the conductive contact pad (118) is arranged vertically between the solder (124) and the magnetoresistive sensing element (202). Huang specification ¶¶ 21, 31. Huang does not disclose that the solder (124) is directly arranged on the conductive contact pad (118), or that, specifically, a solder pad is present (unless the under bump metallization (UBM) layer (122) and the conductive core structure (206) are considered to be the solder pad). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate that the direct contact/arrangement requirement is critical to the invention. Instead, applicants’ disclosure states that “[i]n some implementations, the solder pad 226 may be arranged directly on the conductive contact pad (e.g., in direct contact with the conductive contact pad 224).” See applicants’ specification, page 13, paragraph 46. The purpose of the solder pad is to make an electrical connection between the connection pad and an electrical supply. Whether that electrical connection is made by direct contact between the solder pad and the conductive contact pad, or if—as in Huang—there are an intervening under bump metallization (UBM) layer (122) and conductive core structure (206), does not make a patentably significant difference.
Second: the Huang conductive contact pad is considered to be bond pad (118), UBM layer (122), and conductive core structure (206), in which case, Huang discloses a solder (124) directly arranged on the conductive contact pad (118, 122, 206), wherein the conductive contact pad (118) is arranged vertically between the solder (124) and the magnetoresistive sensing element (202). Huang specification ¶¶ 21, 31.
As for the difference between the use of a solder and the use of a solder pad and a solder, Pietambaram Figure 2 discloses the use of a solder pad (180) between a copper-based interconnect (170) and a solder (190) as a surface finish to assist making the connection. Pietambaram specification ¶ 16. Here, the solder pad would be on the copper-based conductive core structure (206). One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Huang to include the Pietambaram solder pad (180) because the Pietambaram solder pad (180) improves the connection.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4: The combination discloses at least one isolation layer (106) of the IC layer stack (105) is arranged vertically between the conductive contact pad (118) and the magnetoresistive sensing element (202), and wherein the solder pad (124) and the magnetoresistive sensing element (202) are separated by a vertical distance of at least 15 μm (total of maximum thicknesses of passivation layer (114) and polymeric protection layer (116), Huang specification ¶¶ 18, 42), plus the thickness of the portion of dielectric structure (106) above magnetoresistive sensing element (202), the thickness of the conductive contact pad (118), the thickness of additional passivation layer (204), the thickness of UBM layer (122), the thickness of conductive core structure (206). Based on Huang Figure 2 and the Huang disclosure, the thickness would be at least 25 µm.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 4: Huang discloses wherein the conductive contact pad (118) is made of at least one of aluminum or copper, Huang specification ¶ 17, and wherein the Pietambaram solder pad (124) is a nickel-phosphorus alloy, Pietambaram specification ¶ 16.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6: The combination discloses the solder pad (Pietambaram (180)) is made of a nickel-phosphorus-palladium-gold alloy (NiP/Pd/Au). Id.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Jenkins, and Pietambaram, with evidence from or in the alternative obvious in view of Xu, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0349243, Figure 12.
PNG
media_image6.png
202
398
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4: The discussion of claim 5 is incorporated by reference. To the extent that the argument does not render obvious claim 5, the Office provides Xu Figure 12. Xu discloses that the dielectric layer (206) on the magnetoresistive elements is 6-7 µm, and the conductive layer (207) is 3-5 µm, Xu specification ¶¶ 89, 90, for a total of 9-12 µm. This information, combined with the information in Huang, discloses that the solder pad (124) and the magnetoresistive sensing element are separated by a vertical distance of at least 15 µm plus 9-12 µm, plus the additional thickness of other layers discussed in the earlier rejection of claim 5, which would overlap the “at least 25 µm” requirement. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify the combination to use the Xu thicknesses because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolognia, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0062071, Figure 7, and further in view of Huang.
PNG
media_image7.png
411
575
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13: Bolognia Figure 7 discloses a chip-scale package (12), comprising: a magnetic sensor integrated circuit (IC) (12) comprising: an IC layer; a plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements integrated in the IC layer, including a first magnetoresistive sensing element arranged in a first sensor area (31a) and a second magnetoresistive sensing element arranged in a second sensor area (31b), wherein the first sensor area (31a) and the second sensor area (31b) are laterally separated. Bolognia specification ¶¶ 88-95. Bolognia does not disclose the details of the IC structure. Bolognia does not state whether there are more than one magnetoresistive sensing element in each sensor area, but states that more than two sensor areas may be included in the device. Id. ¶ 89. If there are two additional sensor areas within the chip scale package, then two adjacent areas can be combined for purposes of this rejection and considered to be the first sensor area with a first plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements arranged therein, and a second sensor area with a second plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements arranged therein.
Huang Figure 2 discloses a chip-scale package, comprising: a magnetic sensor integrated circuit (IC) comprising: an IC layer stack (105) comprising a plurality of isolation layers (106) and a plurality of conductive layers (108); and a magnetoresistive sensing element (202) integrated in the IC layer stack (105) in a first sensor area; a first conductive contact pad (118) arranged on or integrated in the IC layer stack (105), wherein the first conductive contact pad (118) is arranged over the first sensor area such that the first conductive contact pad (118) and the first sensor area at least partially vertically overlap. Huang specification ¶¶ 28-32. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Bolognia to include the Huang magnetic sensor IC because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose. Once combined, the combination discloses, for each of the other magnetoresistive sensing elements in the sensing areas, a second conductive contact pad arranged on or integrated in the IC layer stack, wherein the second conductive contact pad is arranged over the second sensor area such that the second conductive contact pad and the second sensor area at least partially vertically overlap.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 13: Bolognia discloses the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements are tunnel magnetoresistive (TMR) sensing elements. Bolognia specification ¶ 89.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, and further in view of Pietambaram.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 15: Xu is silent as to whether a magnetic metal layer is formed on top of the conductive contact pad (right conductive interconnect (207)) such that the magnetic metal layer and the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements (204) at least partially vertically overlap. Xu does disclose a pad (209) on the conductive pad (right conductive interconnect (207)). See Xu Figure 12; Xu specification ¶ 95.
Pietambaram Figure 2 discloses the use of a solder pad (180) between a copper-based interconnect (170) and a solder (190) as a surface finish to assist making the connection, the surface finish being made of a nickel-phosphorus-palladium-gold alloy (NiP/Pd/Au). Pietambaram specification ¶ 16. (Applicants’ disclosure indicates that this alloy is a magnetic material. See applicants’ specification ¶ 46.) Here, the solder pad would be on the Xu aluminum-based pad (209). One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Xu to include the Pietambaram solder pad (180) because the Pietambaram solder pad (180) improves the connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 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:
With regard to claim 19: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the magnetic metal layer and the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements are separated by a vertical distance of at least 25 μm”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 20: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the conductive structures extend vertically within the IC layer stack and are laterally offset from the sensor area”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
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