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 .
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.
Claims 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 11 introduces the external connection 380, which is a separate embodiment than those including a conductive pad 150. It is completely unclear how these two elements may interact or be formed together as no embodiment showing both options is shown, especially given the remaining claim language. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11.
Specifically regarding Claim 17, “modulus of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are different materials” does not make sense. It is assumed that the two layers are different materials having different flexural modulus was intended.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 from which Claim 8 depends is limited to the second insulating layer “embedding” the redistribution layer. Claim 8 improperly further limits this “embedding” by including an oxide layer at a side surface of the RDL. It appears what was intended is that the second insulating layer covers the RDL. Claims 9, 10, 16 and 20 are similarly rejected. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20210272913 to Kim et. al. (Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches in Fig. 1 at least, package for semiconductor comprising:
a semiconductor chip 120;
a first insulating layer 130 for embedding the semiconductor chip and protecting the semiconductor chip;
a redistribution layer 142a,b/143a,b disposed on the first insulating layer;
a second insulating layer 140 disposed on the first insulating layer and for embedding the redistribution layer and protecting the redistribution layer; and
a conductive pad 142c disposed on the second insulating layer.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 1, wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer form an interface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 1, further comprising:
a first conductive bump 120b disposed on the semiconductor chip; and a second conductive bump disposed on the redistribution layer.
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 4- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 3, but does not explicitly teach that a height of the second conductive bump in a vertical direction is greater than a height of the redistribution layer in a vertical direction. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In this case, the record merely states that the claimed thickness may be greater with no further explanation.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 3, wherein the second conductive bump covers a portion of an upper surface of the redistribution layer and is spaced apart from a side surface of the redistribution layer (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 1, wherein the redistribution layer overlaps with the semiconductor chip in a vertical direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 1, wherein a lateral length of the redistribution layer is greater than a lateral length of the semiconductor chip (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 2, wherein an upper surface of the redistribution layer is located on the same plane as the interface (see Fig. 1, “upper surface” is arbitrary and redistribution structures 143a(a2),(a1) are located at the plane of intersection of 140 and 126).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 1, wherein the redistribution layer overlaps with the semiconductor chip in a vertical direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 1, wherein he first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are different materials having different flexural modulus (130 may be photosensitive resin [0048] and 141a,b,c may be ABF [0029]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 17, wherein the modulus of the second insulating layer is 60% or less in a room temperature condition and 30% or less in high temperature condition compared to the modulus of the first insulating layer (identical materials will have identical characteristics, MPEP 2112).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim teaches the package for semiconductor of claim 17, wherein a flexural strength of the second insulating layer is 60% or less in room temperature condition compared to a flexural strength of the first insulating layer (identical materials will have identical characteristics, MPEP 2112).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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 cited prior art does not show a conductive bump covering all of an upper surface of a redistribution layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVREN SEVEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5666. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00- 5:00 Pacific.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights