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 § 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.
(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(s) 1, 2, 7-9, 16-17, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oster (US 20150189797 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oster discloses a semiconductor package (Fig. 4J) comprising: a semiconductor chip (411); an encapsulation, wherein the semiconductor chip is at least partially embedded in the encapsulation (comprises dielectric layer 441 and 430; Examiner believes 430 to be mistakenly labeled as 410 in Fig. 4J); and a metal structure (comprises 450, 455, and 460) formed directly on an outer surface of the encapsulation (455 is shown formed on the outer surface of 441), wherein the metal structure comprises a floating portion (450), wherein the floating portion is formed directly over formation of a recess in the encapsulation (Shown), wherein the floating portion comprises at least one of a trace or a pad (Shown), and wherein the metal structure is electrically coupled with the semiconductor chip (460 is shown electrically coupled to 411). Regarding the claim language “wherein the recess is formed by removing a portion of the encapsulation using a laser and chemical removal to enable metal to be free from the encapsulation” recites intermediate process steps that do not affect the structure of the final device. Therefore, the process limitations recited in a “product by process” claim would not carry patentable weight in a claim drawn to structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced. See MPEP 2113. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Oster discloses wherein the floating portion further comprises at least one of a meander or a coil (Para. 42 " MEMS member 450 may be any beam, coil…").
Regarding claim 7, Oster discloses wherein the metal structure is part of at least one of a heater, an antenna, a speaker, a switch, a resistor, or a gas sensor element (Para. 34 "Representative MEMS devices include... switches,").
Regarding claim 8, Oster discloses wherein the metal structure is covered with a lid (Fig. 4J, 485).
Regarding claim 9, Oster discloses wherein the floating portion is provided in an indentation of the encapsulation (Shown).
Regarding claim 16, Oster discloses a device comprising: a semiconductor package (Fig. 4J) wherein the semiconductor package comprises: an encapsulation (comprises dielectric layer 441 and 430; Examiner believes 430 to be mistakenly labeled as 410 in Fig. 4J); a semiconductor chip (411) at least partially embedded in an encapsulation (shown); and a metal structure (comprises 450, 455, and 460) formed directly on an outer surface of the encapsulation (455 is shown formed on the outer surface of 441), wherein at least a portion of the metal structure comprises a floating portion (450), wherein the floating portion is formed directly over formation of a recess (Shown), wherein the floating portion comprises at least one of a trace or a pad (Shown), and wherein the metal structure is electrically coupled with the semiconductor chip (460 is shown electrically coupled to 411). Regarding the claim language “wherein the recess is formed by removing a portion of the encapsulation using a laser and chemical removal to enable metal to be free from the encapsulation” recites intermediate process steps that do not affect the structure of the final device. Therefore, the process limitations recited in a “product by process” claim would not carry patentable weight in a claim drawn to structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced. See MPEP 2113. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 17, Oster discloses wherein the floating portion further comprises at least one of a meander or a coil (Para. 42 " MEMS member 450 may be any beam, coil…").
Regarding claim 23, Oster discloses wherein the metal structure is part of at least one of a heater, an antenna, a speaker, a switch, a resistor, or a gas sensor element (Para. 34 "Representative MEMS devices include... switches,").
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster (US 20150189797 A1) in view of Haney (US 20150291415 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Oster discloses the semiconductor package of claim 1. However, Oster does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal structure is made of a first metal, and wherein the first metal comprises at least one of a copper, an aluminum, a tungsten, a nickel, a palladium, or a platinum.
On the other hand, Haney discloses the metal structures being formed of copper (Fig. 5E, Para. 39 "MEMS layer 550 and copper pads and traces 552 and 554 formed from an electroplating processes", therefore 550 would necessarily be formed of the same electroplating process used to form the copper pads). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective fling of the invention to modify Oster according to the teachings of Haney such that the metal structure would have included a first metal and wherein the first metal would comprise copper, in order to use an incredibly common material in the art to form electrical connections and thereby maintain low material costs.
Regarding claim 20, Oster discloses the device of claim 16, and a portion of the metal structure (450) at least partially covering the recess. However, Oster does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal structure comprises a first metal and a second metal that at least partially covers the recess, wherein the first metal and the second metal comprise a same metal.
On the other hand, Haney discloses the components of the metal structure all being formed of copper (Fig. 5E, Para. 39 "MEMS layer 550 and copper pads and traces 552 and 554 formed from an electroplating processes", therefore 550 would necessarily be formed of the same electroplating process used to form the copper pads). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective fling of the invention to modify Oster according to the teachings of Haney such that the metal structure would have included a first metal and a second metal that at least partially covers the recess, and wherein the first metal and the second metal would comprise a same metal, in order to simplify manufacturing by using the same metal for the entire metal structure.
Regarding claim 21, Oster discloses the device of claim 16. However, Oster does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal structure is made of a first metal, and wherein the first metal comprises at least one of a copper, an aluminum, a tungsten, a nickel, a palladium, or a platinum.
On the other hand, Haney discloses the metal structures being formed of copper (Fig. 5E, Para. 39 "MEMS layer 550 and copper pads and traces 552 and 554 formed from an electroplating processes", therefore 550 would necessarily be formed of the same electroplating process used to form the copper pads). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective fling of the invention to modify Oster according to the teachings of Haney such that the metal structure would have included a first metal and wherein the first metal would comprise copper, in order to use an incredibly common material in the art to form electrical connections and thereby maintain low material costs.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster (US 20150189797 A1) in view of Haney (US 20150291415 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-9, 16-17, and 23 above, and further in view of Chang (US 20140339653 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Oster in view of Haney discloses the semiconductor package of claim 3. However, Oster in view of Haney does not disclose wherein the recess is at least partially covered with a second metal, and wherein the second metal is different from the first metal.
On the other hand, Chang discloses a MEMS device (Fig. 2) the use of copper for electrical connection lines (Fig. 1, 430; para. 30 “The electrical connection line 430 may be made of conductive material such as… copper”), while forming a coil (Fig. 2, 413) from aluminum (Para. 43 “using the deposition method to deposit an aluminum layer on the first insulating layer 412, and patterning the aluminum (Al) layer in order to form the micro-coil layer 413”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Oster in view of Haney according to the teachings of Chang such that the coil would be formed of aluminum while the interconnects would be formed of copper, such that the recess would at least be partially covered with a second metal, and wherein the second metal would be different from the first metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification in order to optimize the responsiveness of the coil by using a low-density metal such as aluminum in order to minimize the coil’s mass (and therefore resistance to changes in motion), while still using a highly conductive metal such as copper to carry signals and power.
Regarding claim 6, Chang further discloses wherein the second metal comprises aluminum (Para. 43 “using the deposition method to deposit an aluminum layer on the first insulating layer 412, and patterning the aluminum (Al) layer in order to form the micro-coil layer 413”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster (US 20150189797 A1) in view of Rogers (US 20150048901 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Oster discloses the semiconductor package of claim 1. However, Oster does not disclose wherein the recess has a rectangular opening.
On the other hand, Rogers discloses the recess having a rectangular opening (Fig. 3A shows metal structures formed in rectangular recesses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Oster according to the teachings of Rogers such that the recess would have a rectangular opening in order to simplify manufacturing and design by using a simple shape for the recess.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haney (US 20150291415 A1) in view of Abraham (US 20120049200 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Haney discloses a method for manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising: providing a semiconductor chip (Fig. 5A, 508) at least partially embedded in an encapsulation (510A, 510B), providing a metal structure (Comprising 550, 552, 554, and 518) directly on an outer surface of the encapsulation (Shown); and forming a floating portion (Fig. 5E, portion of 550 floating above the recess) of the metal structure directly over a recess by forming the recess in the encapsulation, wherein forming the recess comprises removing a portion of the encapsulation (Shown), and using ion etching and chemical removal to enable metal to be free from the encapsulation (Para. 40 "a reactive ion etching or oxygen plasma release process is performed on stack 500 to remove a portion of the organic dielectric film layers to release MEMS layer 550"). However, Haney does not disclose specifically using a laser and a chemical removal process to enable metal to be free from the encapsulation.
On the other hand, Abraham discloses etching dielectric layer (Fig. 2C, 220) by either an ion-beam or a laser (Para. 35 “Free-standing film portion 222 optionally may be partially or completely freed from structure 200', e.g., using a free-ion beam (FIB) or other suitable technique known in the art, such as mechanical or laser-based cutting”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Haney according to the teachings of Abraham such that the ion etching process of Haney would be interchanged for a laser cutting process, and therefore both a laser and chemical removal process would be used to free the metal from the encapsulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification in order to eliminate the need for masking when using ion etching.
Regarding claim 12, Haney further discloses wherein providing the metal structure on the encapsulation comprises at least one of: plating a surface of the encapsulation with a first metal, or printing a first metal on the surface of the encapsulation (Shown best in Figs. 2A; Para. 39 "MEMS layer 550 and copper pads and traces 552 and 554 formed from an electroplating processes").
Regarding claim 13, Haney further discloses wherein providing the metal structure on the encapsulation comprises: structuring the first metal (The process of forming the metal structure inherently requires the process of structuring the metal).
Regarding claim 15, Haney further discloses wherein forming the recess in the encapsulation comprises: etching a portion of the encapsulation (Para. 40 "a reactive ion etching or oxygen plasma release process is performed on stack 500 to remove a portion of the organic dielectric film layers to release MEMS layer 550").
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oster (US 20150189797 A1) in view of Chang (US 20140339653 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Oster disclose the device of claim 16. However, Oster does not disclose wherein the metal structure comprises a first metal and a second metal, that is different from the first metal, at least partially covering the recess.
On the other hand, Chang discloses a MEMS device (Fig. 2) the use of copper for electrical connection lines (Fig. 1, 430; para. 30 “The electrical connection line 430 may be made of conductive material such as… copper”), while forming a coil (Fig. 2, 413) from aluminum (Para. 43 “using the deposition method to deposit an aluminum layer on the first insulating layer 412, and patterning the aluminum (Al) layer in order to form the micro-coil layer 413”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Oster according to the teachings of Chang such that the coil would be formed of aluminum while the interconnects would be formed of copper, such that the recess would at least be partially covered with a second metal, and wherein the second metal would be different from the first metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification in order to optimize the responsiveness of the coil by using a low-density metal such as aluminum in order to minimize the coil’s mass (and therefore resistance to changes in motion), while still using a highly conductive metal such as copper to carry signals and power.
Regarding claim 22, Chang further discloses wherein the second metal comprises aluminum (Para. 43 “using the deposition method to deposit an aluminum layer on the first insulating layer 412, and patterning the aluminum (Al) layer in order to form the micro-coil layer 413”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-9, filed 8/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9, 11-13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art. Specifically, Oster discloses each of the limitations of claims 1 and 16 that have patentable weight (see explanation of product by process limitations in the rejections of claim 1 and 16 above). Haney discloses all of the limitations of the method claim 11, except that a laser process is used to free the metal from the encapsulation, which is remedies by the teachings of Abraham.
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 SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571) 272-2063. 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.
/S.J.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights