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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following subject matter must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 18, lines, recites “a first redistribution structure directly connected to the passive component,” which is not illustrated by the drawings. Instead, the drawings (e.g., Fig. 1A) illustrate a first redistribution structure (e.g., 30) indirectly connected to a passive component (12) through a carrier (10).”
Claim 19, lines 2 and 3, recites “an encapsulant disposed between the first redistribution structure and the second redistribution structure” and base claim 18, lines 6 and 7, recites “a second redistribution structure directly connected to the active surface of the electronic component.” This combination of features is not illustrated by the drawings. If the second redistribution structure is deemed to be feature (50), then the second redistribution structure (50) is not directly connected to the active (e.g., upper) surface of the electronic component (20). On the other hand, if the second redistribution structure is deemed to be feature (23), then an encapsulant (40) is not disposed between the first redistribution structure (e.g., 30) and the second redistribution structure (23).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12 and 14 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.
Claim 12, line 2, recites “a power,” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same power recited in base claim 1. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with base claim 1, this will be interpreted as “the power.”
Claim 14, line 2, recites “a power,” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same power recited in base claim 13. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with base claim 13, this will be interpreted as “the power.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US20230031430A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches in Fig. 14 an electronic device, comprising:
a carrier (404) having a first conductive element (bottommost portion of 502) exposed by a lower surface of the carrier (404) {Figs. 6, 7; [0029], the bottommost redistribution conductive patterns 502 extend into the openings OP of the underlying passivation layer 404};
an electronic component (100) disposed over the carrier (404) and configured to receive a power from the first conductive element (bottommost portion of 502) {Figs. 2, 7; [0016, 0029]; The plurality of redistribution conductive patterns 502 are electrically connected to the conductive components (not shown) embedded in the device layer 104 of the first semiconductor die 100 (thus, is configured to receive power) [0029]; the orientations of Liu’s drawings may be rotated as necessary to match the claimed limitation (see e.g., Liu’s Fig. 14)}; and
a second conductive element (620) disposed at a lateral side of the carrier (404) and protruding downwardly below the lower surface of the carrier (404) {Figs. 12-14; [0038], the orientations of Liu’s drawings may be rotated as necessary to match the claimed limitation (see e.g., Liu’s Fig. 14)}.
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Liu further teaches wherein the electronic component (100) has an upper surface, and the second conductive element (620) protrudes upwardly over the upper surface of the electronic component (100) {Fig. 14}.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Liu further teaches wherein a diameter of the second conductive element (620) is greater than a diameter of the first conductive element (bottommost portion of 502) {Figs. 7, 13, 14}.
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Liu further teaches wherein the first conductive element (bottommost portion of 502) protrudes downwardly below the lower surface of the carrier (404) {Figs. 7, 14}.
Regarding claim 12, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 9, and Liu further teaches wherein the electronic component (100) is configured to receive the power through a lower surface of the electronic component (100) {Fig. 14; [0029], The plurality of redistribution conductive patterns 502 are electrically connected to the conductive components (not shown) embedded in the device layer 104 of the first semiconductor die 100}.
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches in Fig. 14 an electronic device, comprising:
a carrier (404) having a first conductive element (bottommost portion of 502) exposed by a lower surface of the carrier (404) {Figs. 6, 7; [0029], the bottommost redistribution conductive patterns 502 extend into the openings OP of the underlying passivation layer 404};;
an electronic component (100) disposed over the carrier (404) and configured to receive a power from the first conductive element (bottommost portion of 502) {Figs. 2, 7; [0016, 0029]; The plurality of redistribution conductive patterns 502 are electrically connected to the conductive components (not shown) embedded in the device layer 104 of the first semiconductor die 100 (thus, is configured to receive power) [0029]; the orientations of Liu’s drawings may be rotated as necessary to match the claimed limitation (see e.g., Liu’s Fig. 14)}; and
a second conductive element (620) disposed at a lateral side of the carrier (404), wherein a lower surface of the first conductive element (bottommost portion of 502) and a lower surface of the second conductive element (620) are in different elevations with respect to the lower surface of the carrier (404) {Fig. 14}.
Regarding claim 14, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 13, and Liu further teaches wherein the carrier (404) comprises a passive component (conductive via portion of 512 disposed within opening OP of carrier 404) configured to transmit the power to the electronic component (100) through a lower surface of the electronic component (104) {Figs. 6, 7, 14; [0029], The plurality of redistribution conductive patterns 502 are electrically connected to the conductive components (not shown) embedded in the device layer 104 of the first semiconductor die 100 (thus, is configured to receive power)}.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US20150287708A1).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Liu further teaches further comprising: a redistribution structure (400) disposed below the carrier (404) and the second conductive element (620).
Liu does not expressly teach the redistribution structure is configured to bridge a power path between the second conductive element and the electronic component.
In an analogous art, Lin teaches in Fig. 32 a redistribution structure (720) configured to bridge a power path between a second conductive element (leftmost 776) and an electronic component (276). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device based on the teachings of Lin, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, for providing lateral or horizontal redistribution for the electrical signals. Lin [0219]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., redistribution structure, conductive element, electronic component) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lin) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Liu as modified by Lin teaches the electronic device of claim 4, but Liu does not teach wherein the redistribution structure is connected to opposite two sides of the first conductive element in a cross-sectional view.
Lin teaches in Fig. 32 a redistribution structure (720) is connected to opposite two sides of a first conductive element (e.g., rightmost 776) in a cross-sectional view {e.g., adjacent fingers 722 of the redistribution structure 720 are disposed on opposites sides of a single interlocking finger of rightmost conductive element 776}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device as modified by Lin based on the further teachings of Lin, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, for providing a greater surface area for [electrical] contact. Lin [0219]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., redistribution structure, two sides of conductive element) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lin) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Liu as modified by Lin teaches the electronic device of claim 4, but Liu does not teach wherein the redistribution structure is connected to two opposite sides of the second conductive element in a cross-sectional view.
Lin teaches in Fig. 32 a redistribution structure (720) is connected to opposite two sides of a second conductive element (e.g., leftmost 776) in a cross-sectional view {e.g., adjacent fingers 722 of the redistribution structure 720 are disposed on opposites sides of a single interlocking finger of leftmost conductive element 776}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device as modified by Lin based on the further teachings of Lin, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, for providing a greater surface area for [electrical] contact. Lin [0219]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., redistribution structure, two sides of conductive element) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lin) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ke et al. (US20240072019A1).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but Liu does not teach wherein a distance between an elevation of the first conductive element and an elevation of the lower surface of the carrier is greater than a distance between an elevation of a bottom of the second conductive element and the elevation of the lower surface of the carrier.
In an analogous art, Ke teaches in Fig. 2E and paragraphs [0032, 0044] a distance between an elevation of a first conductive element (200) and an elevation of a lower surface of a carrier (20) is greater than a distance between an elevation of a bottom of a second conductive element (23) and the elevation of the lower surface of the carrier (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device based on the teachings of Ke, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., first conductive element, carrier, second conductive element) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ke) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Liu further teaches further comprising: an encapsulant (630) encapsulating the second conductive element (620).
Liu does not teach the second conductive element protrudes downwardly below a lower surface of the encapsulant.
Ke teaches in Fig. 2E and paragraph [0045] a second conductive element (23) protrudes downwardly below a lower surface of an encapsulant (25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device based on the teachings of Ke, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so a portion of the second conductive element is exposed for electrical connection to another conductive element. Ke [0067]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., conductive element, encapsulant) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ke) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Liu as modified by Ke teaches the electronic device of claim 9, and Liu further teaches wherein the lower surface of the encapsulant (630) is lower than the lower surface of the carrier (404) with respect to an upper surface of the encapsulant (630) {Figs. 7, 14}.
Regarding claim 11, Liu as modified by Ke teaches the electronic device of claim 9, but Liu does not teach wherein the first conductive element protrudes downwardly below the lower surface of the encapsulant.
Ke teaches in Figs. 2A, 2E and paragraph [0035] a first conductive element (200, 201) protrudes downwardly below a lower surface of an encapsulant (25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device as modified by Ke based on the further teachings of Ke, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so a portion of the first conductive element is exposed for electrical connection to another conductive element. Ke [0042]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., conductive element, encapsulant) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ke) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sugimasa et al. (US20050020781A1).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches the electronic device of claim 13, and Liu further teaches further comprising: an encapsulant (630) encapsulating the second conductive element (620) and the carrier (404) {Fig. 12; [0039]}.
Liu does not expressly teach a roughness of a lower surface of the encapsulant is different from a roughness of the lower surface of the second conductive element.
However, Liu teaches the encapsulant (e.g., epoxy resin, which is relatively smooth) and second conductive element (e.g., aluminum, which is relatively rough) are formed of different materials, which implies a difference in their roughness due to their respective chemical compositions.
In an analogous art, Sugimasa teaches in paragraph [0005] the surface roughness of a conductive layer leads to an effect to enhance adhesiveness between the conductive layer and an insulating resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device based on the teachings of Sugimasa for discovering an optimum or workable range of adhesiveness – such that a roughness Liu’s encapsulant is different from a roughness of Liu’s second conductive element – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Moreover, even supposing arguendo that Liu’s the encapsulant (e.g., epoxy resin) and second conductive element (e.g., aluminum) do not have a difference in roughness, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Furthermore, the instant application does not identify a performance/operational difference achieved by the dimensional (i.e., roughness) limitation. [Where] the dimensional limitations [of the claimed device] d[o] not specify a device which perform[s] and operate[s] any differently from the prior art, a difference between such claimed dimensional limitations and those existing in the prior art is insufficient to render the claimed device non-obvious over the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Liu as modified by Sugimasa teaches the electronic device of claim 15, and Liu further teaches wherein the lower surface of the encapsulant (630) is misaligned with the lower surface of the carrier (404) {Figs. 7, 14}.
Regarding claim 17, Liu as modified by Sugimasa teaches the electronic device of claim 15, and Liu further teaches further comprising: a first redistribution structure (500) disposed under the lower surface of the encapsulant (630), the encapsulant (630) defines a recess (containing first redistribution structure 500) recessed from the lower surface, and a dielectric material (501) of the first redistribution structure (500) is disposed within the recess (containing first redistribution structure 500) defined by the encapsulant (630) {Figs. 7, 14; [0029]}.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ke.
Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches in Fig. 14 an electronic device, comprising:
a passive component (404 and via portions of 502 within OP’s of 404) {Figs. 6, 7; [0029]};
an electronic component (100) having an active surface (upper surface) and a backside surface (lower surface) configured to receive a power from the passive component (404 and via portions of 502 within OP’s of 404) {Fig. 7; [0016]; The plurality of redistribution conductive patterns 502 are electrically connected to the conductive components (not shown) embedded in the device layer 104 of the first semiconductor die 100 (thus, is configured to receive power) [0029]};
a first redistribution structure (500) directly connected to the passive component (404 and via portions of 502 within OP’s of 404) {Fig. 7; [0029]}.
Liu does not teach a second redistribution structure directly connected to the active surface of the electronic component.
Ke teaches in Fig. 2E a second redistribution structure (26) directly connected to an active surface (e.g., upper surface) of an electronic component (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device based on the teachings of Ke, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to provide electrical connectivity between the electronic component and components disposed both below and above the electronic component. Ke [0042]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., redistribution structure, electronic component) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ke) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Liu as modified by Ke teaches the electronic device of claim 18, and Liu further teaches further comprising: an encapsulant (630).
Liu does not teach necessarily that the encapsulant is disposed between the first redistribution structure and the second redistribution structure.
Ke teaches in Figs. 2A, 2E an encapsulant (25) is disposed between a first redistribution structure (22) and a second redistribution structure (26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device as modified by Ke based on the further teachings of Ke, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., encapsulant, first and second redistribution structure) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ke) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ke as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Fang (US20220262697A1).
Regarding claim 20, Liu as modified by Ke teaches the electronic device of claim 19, but Liu does not teach wherein the encapsulant comprises a plurality of fillers, and at least one filler has a truncated surface exposed by an upper surface or a lower surface of the encapsulant.
Fang teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0038] teaches an encapsulant (16) comprises a plurality of fillers, and at least one filler has a truncated surface exposed by a lower surface of the encapsulant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s electronic device as modified by Ke based on the teachings of Fang, to expose one or more encapsulated components (such as for electrical connection to other components) through a grinding process. Fang [0037, 0038]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., encapsulant, fillers) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Fang) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al. (US20210193582A1) teaches a structure includes: a first integrated circuit die including first die connectors; a first dielectric layer on the first die connectors; first conductive vias extending through the first dielectric layer, the first conductive vias connected to a first subset of the first die connectors; a second integrated circuit die bonded to a second subset of the first die connectors with first reflowable connectors; a first encapsulant surrounding the second integrated circuit die and the first conductive vias, the first encapsulant and the first integrated circuit die being laterally coterminous; second conductive vias adjacent the first integrated circuit die; a second encapsulant surrounding the second conductive vias, the first encapsulant, and the first integrated circuit die; and a first redistribution structure including first redistribution lines, the first redistribution lines connected to the first conductive vias and the second conductive vias.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights