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
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 7/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-6 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 1 claims a structure body that comprises at least one of a first film provided on at least a portion of the first main surface of the support base and a second film provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base. This means the structure body may comprise only a first film provided on at least a portion of the first main surface of the support base or a second film provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base. Claim 1 also claims a thermal expansion coefficient of the first film is between a thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body and a thermal expansion coefficient of the semiconductor, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the second film is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body. This means the structure body comprises a first film provided on at least a portion of the first main surface of the support base and a second film provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base. Claims 2-6 depend from Claim 1. For purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation as a structure body that comprises a first film provided on at least a portion of the first main surface of the support base and a second film provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base. Claims 2-6 depend from Claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0294239), in view of Elenius (WO 9921226).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 22 of Sakata discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a support base that comprises a first main surface and a second main surface on an opposite side of the first main surface, and comprises a semiconductor (SB); at least one thin-film metal electrode (PD) that is provided on the first main surface of the support base; a thin-film resin layer (PA1) that comprises a first opening (OP3a) on the thin-film metal electrode and covers an edge of the thin-film metal electrode; at least one thick-film metal body (PL) that is located above the thin-film metal electrode and the thin-film resin layer and comprises a metal film containing copper [0128]; a thick-film resin body (UFR, FIG. 43) that covers a lateral surface of the thick-film metal body and is provided on the first main surface of the support base; and a structure body that comprises at least one of a first film (PA2) provided on at least a portion of the first main surface of the support base, wherein the first film is provided between the thin-film resin layer and the thick-film resin body, and the support base is under the thick-film resin body, wherein the thick-film metal body, the thin-film metal electrode, and the support base are arranged along a direction of a first axis, an upper surface of the thick-film metal body and an upper surface of the thick-film resin body extend along a reference plane intersecting with the first axis, a thickness of the thick-film metal body is larger than a thickness of the thin-film metal electrode, a thickness of the thick-film resin body is larger than a thickness of the thin-film resin layer.
Sakata is silent with respect to “a second film provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base”; “the support base is provided between the second film and the thick-film resin body”; and “a thermal expansion coefficient of the second film is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body”.
FIG. 2 of Elenius discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a second film (34) provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base (14); the support base is provided between the second film and the thick-film resin body (32); and a thermal expansion coefficient (30-60 ppm/C) of the second film is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient (61-65 ppm/C) of the thick-film resin body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sakata, as taught by Elenius. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sakata in the above manner for purpose of providing protection (Page 3, Lines 16-38 of Elenius).
With respect to “a thermal expansion coefficient of the first film is between a thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body and a thermal expansion coefficient of the semiconductor, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the second film is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body”, said coefficients are related to the thermal stress. Therefore, arrangement of the order of the stacked multilayers having different coefficients of thermal expansion is considered to be a result effective variable, where the result is the device reliability. The claim to specific thermal expansion coefficients therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). Pertinent art US 20180130760, WO 2009084584 and CN 101562169 provide documentary evidences.
Claims 1 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0025371), in view of Shiota (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0233111).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 12 of Matsui discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a support base (101) that comprises a first main surface and a second main surface on an opposite side of the first main surface, and comprises a semiconductor [0007]; at least one thin-film metal electrode (102) that is provided on the first main surface of the support base; a thin-film resin [0031] layer (103) that comprises a first opening on the thin-film metal electrode and covers an edge of the thin-film metal electrode; at least one thick-film metal body (106) that is located above the thin-film metal electrode and the thin-film resin layer and comprises a metal film containing copper [0034]; a thick-film resin [0007] body (107) that covers a lateral surface of the thick-film metal body and is provided on the first main surface of the support base; and a structure body that comprises at least one of a first film (104) provided on at least a portion of the first main surface of the support base, wherein the first film is provided between the thin-film resin layer and the thick-film resin body, and the support base is under the thick-film resin body, wherein the thick-film metal body, the thin-film metal electrode, and the support base are arranged along a direction of a first axis, an upper surface of the thick-film metal body and an upper surface of the thick-film resin body extend along a reference plane intersecting with the first axis, a thickness of the thick-film metal body is larger than a thickness of the thin-film metal electrode, a thickness of the thick-film resin body is larger than a thickness of the thin-film resin layer.
Matsui is silent with respect to “a second film provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base”; “the support base is provided between the second film and the thick-film resin body”; and “a thermal expansion coefficient of the first film is between a thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body and a thermal expansion coefficient of the semiconductor, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the second film is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body”.
FIG. 1 of Shiota discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a second film (70) provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsui, as taught by Shiota, such that the support base is provided between the second film and the thick-film resin body. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Matsui in the above manner for purpose of minimizing the warpage ([0016] of Shiota).
With respect to “a thermal expansion coefficient of the first film is between a thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body and a thermal expansion coefficient of the semiconductor, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the second film is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body”, said coefficients are related to the thermal stress. Therefore, arrangement of the order of the stacked multilayers having different coefficients of thermal expansion is considered to be a result effective variable, where the result is the device reliability. The claim to specific thermal expansion coefficients therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). Pertinent art US 20180130760, WO 2009084584 and CN 101562169 provide documentary evidences.
Regarding Claim 4
FIG. 12 of Matsui discloses the thin-film resin layer is one connected region, in which a total area of the first opening of the thin-film resin layer is larger than a total area of an upper surface of the thin-film resin layer.
Claims 2 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Shiota, in view of Sakata (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0294239).
Regarding Claim 2
Matsui as modified by Shiota discloses Claim 1, wherein the thin-film metal electrode comprises one or more pad electrodes [0007], the thick-film metal body (106) comprises one or more metal pillars connected to the pad electrodes, the first main surface of the support base comprises a first area mounted with the metal pillar and a second area mounted with the thick-film resin body.
Matsui as modified by Shiota is silent with respect to “an area of the first area is larger than an area of the second area”.
FIG. 7 of Sakata discloses a similar semiconductor device, wherein an area of the first area is larger than an area of the second area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsui, as taught by Sakata. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Matsui in the above manner for purpose of improving reliability of a semiconductor device ([0006] of Sakata).
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 7 of Sakata discloses the thick-film metal body (PL) covers an entirety of an upper surface of the thin-film metal electrode (PD) in the first opening of the thin-film resin layer (PA1), and an area of the upper surface of the thin-film metal electrode is larger than an area of an upper surface of the thin-film resin layer.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Shiota, in view of Ishizeki (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0212426).
Regarding Claim 5
Matsui as modified by Shiota discloses Claim 1.
Matsui as modified by Shiota is silent with respect to “the first film comprises an inorganic insulator containing silicon and nitrogen”.
FIG. 2 of Ishizeki discloses a similar semiconductor device, wherein the first film (8) comprises an inorganic insulator containing silicon and nitrogen [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsui, as taught by Ishizeki. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Matsui in the above manner for purpose of improving reliability ([0036] of Ishizeki).
Claims 1 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui, in view of Nakamura (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0091520).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 12 of Matsui discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a support base (101) that comprises a first main surface and a second main surface on an opposite side of the first main surface, and comprises a semiconductor [0007]; at least one thin-film metal electrode (102) that is provided on the first main surface of the support base; a thin-film resin [0031] layer (103) that comprises a first opening on the thin-film metal electrode and covers an edge of the thin-film metal electrode; at least one thick-film metal body (106) that is located above the thin-film metal electrode and the thin-film resin layer and comprises a metal film containing copper [0034]; a thick-film resin [0007] body (107) that covers a lateral surface of the thick-film metal body and is provided on the first main surface of the support base; and a structure body that comprises at least one of a first film (104) provided on at least a portion of the first main surface of the support base, wherein the first film is provided between the thin-film resin layer and the thick-film resin body, and the support base is under the thick-film resin body, wherein the thick-film metal body, the thin-film metal electrode, and the support base are arranged along a direction of a first axis, an upper surface of the thick-film metal body and an upper surface of the thick-film resin body extend along a reference plane intersecting with the first axis, a thickness of the thick-film metal body is larger than a thickness of the thin-film metal electrode, a thickness of the thick-film resin body is larger than a thickness of the thin-film resin layer.
Matsui is silent with respect to “a second film provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base”; “the support base is provided between the second film and the thick-film resin body”; and “a thermal expansion coefficient of the first film is between a thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body and a thermal expansion coefficient of the semiconductor, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the second film is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body”.
FIG. 4 of Nakamura discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a second film (150) provided on at least a portion of the second main surface of the support base (50); the support base is provided between the second film and the thick-film resin body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsui, as taught by Nakamura. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Matsui in the above manner for purpose of preventing diffusion into the semiconductor substrate ([0185] of Nakamura).
With respect to “a thermal expansion coefficient of the first film is between a thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body and a thermal expansion coefficient of the semiconductor, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the second film is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of the thick-film resin body”, said coefficients are related to the thermal stress. Therefore, arrangement of the order of the stacked multilayers having different coefficients of thermal expansion is considered to be a result effective variable, where the result is the device reliability. The claim to specific thermal expansion coefficients therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). Pertinent art US 20180130760, WO 2009084584 and CN 101562169 provide documentary evidences.
Regarding Claim 6
FIG. 4 of Nakamura discloses the second film (150) comprises an inorganic insulator containing silicon and nitrogen [0185].
Pertinent Art
20180130760, 20120241751, 20050017356, 6075290.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights