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 specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (DATE) were filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim #5 is 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.
With respect to claim #5, the term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from smaller than about 20 in order to be considered “about” 20. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is smaller than about 20) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims #1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims #1, 3, 5, 6, 15 of Hu et al., (U.S. Patent No. U.S. 11,355,378), hereinafter referred to as "Hu". Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because;
Claim #1 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378. Wherein claim #1 discloses, method comprising: forming a Light-To-Heat-Conversion (LTHC) layer over a carrier; forming a sacrificial layer over the LTHC layer; building a package over the sacrificial layer, wherein the building the package comprises plating metal posts, and wherein the metal posts are plated onto a combined structure comprising the sacrificial layer, the LTHC layer, and the carrier; de-bonding the package from the carrier, wherein the LTHC layer is removed; and removing the sacrificial layer. Furthermore, claim #5 discloses, wherein the forming the sacrificial layer comprises depositing a blanket titanium layer, and the forming the package comprises: depositing a copper layer over the blanket titanium layer, wherein the metal posts are plated on the copper layer; and etching the copper layer using the metal posts as an etching mask, wherein after the de-bonding, the blanket titanium layer remains as being a blanket layer, and wherein the sacrificial layer comprising the blanket titanium layer is removed after the de-bonding. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #1 and 5, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #1 of the instant application, which states, a method comprising: forming an adhesive layer over a carrier; forming a sacrificial layer over the adhesive layer; forming a dielectric layer over the sacrificial layer; attaching a device die over the dielectric layer; encapsulating the device die in an encapsulant; de-bonding a package comprising the device die and the encapsulant from the carrier, wherein during a period of time starting from a first time the dielectric layer is formed and ending at a second time the package is de-bonded, the sacrificial layer remains to be a blanket layer; and removing the sacrificial layer.
Claim #3 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, which discloses, wherein the forming the sacrificial layer comprises conducting a hexamethyldisilane (HMDS) gas to form a HMDS layer on the LTHC layer. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #3, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #3 of the instant application, which states, a method wherein the forming the sacrificial layer comprises conducting a hexamethyldisilane (HMDS) gas to form a HMDS layer over the adhesive layer.
Claim #6 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, which discloses, a method wherein the forming the sacrificial layer comprises depositing a blanket titanium layer, and the forming the package comprises: depositing a copper layer over the blanket titanium layer, wherein the metal posts are plated on the copper layer; and etching the copper layer using the metal posts as an etching mask, wherein after the de-bonding, the blanket titanium layer remains as being a blanket layer, and wherein the sacrificial layer comprising the blanket titanium layer is removed after the de-bonding. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #5, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #6 of the instant application, which states, a method wherein at a time the sacrificial layer starts to be removed, the sacrificial layer is the blanket layer.
Claim #9 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, which discloses, method comprising; wherein the forming the sacrificial layer comprises depositing a blanket titanium layer, and the forming the package comprises: depositing a copper layer over the blanket titanium layer, wherein the metal posts are plated on the copper layer; and etching the copper layer using the metal posts as an etching mask, wherein after the de-bonding, the blanket titanium layer remains as being a blanket layer, and wherein the sacrificial layer comprising the blanket titanium layer is removed after the de-bonding. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #5, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #9 of the instant application, which states, a method wherein the sacrificial layer is removed by a same process for de-bonding the package.
Claim #10 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, which discloses, a method comprising: wherein the forming the sacrificial layer comprises forming a metal layer or an inorganic dielectric layer, and the removing the sacrificial layer comprises, after the de-bonding, etching to remove an entirety of the sacrificial layer. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #6, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #10 of the instant application, which states, a method comprising: wherein in the removing the sacrificial layer, an entirety of the sacrificial layer is removed.
Claim #11 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, which discloses, method comprising: forming a Light-To-Heat-Conversion (LTHC) layer over a carrier; forming a sacrificial layer over the LTHC layer; building a package over the sacrificial layer, wherein the building the package comprises plating metal posts, and wherein the metal posts are plated onto a combined structure comprising the sacrificial layer, the LTHC layer, and the carrier; de-bonding the package from the carrier, wherein the LTHC layer is removed; and removing the sacrificial layer. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #1, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #11 of the instant application, which states, a method comprising: depositing a sacrificial layer over a carrier; forming a package over and contacting the sacrificial layer, wherein the forming the package comprises: plating metal posts over the sacrificial layer; and encapsulating the metal posts in an encapsulant; de-bonding the sacrificial layer and the package from the carrier; and removing the sacrificial layer, wherein at a time the removing the sacrificial layer is started, the sacrificial layer is a blanket layer.
Claim #12 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, which discloses, a method comprising: wherein the forming the sacrificial layer comprises forming a metal layer or an inorganic dielectric layer, and the removing the sacrificial layer comprises, after the de-bonding, etching to remove an entirety of the sacrificial layer. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #6, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #12 of the instant application, which states, a method wherein the removing the sacrificial layer results in an entirety of the sacrificial layer to be removed.
Claim #18 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, wherein claim #1 discloses, a method comprising: forming a sacrificial layer over a carrier; forming a patterned polymer layer over and contacting the sacrificial layer; forming a metal post over the sacrificial layer, wherein the metal post comprises a bottom portion extending into the pattered polymer layer, and an upper portion protruding higher than the patterned polymer layer; forming a package over the sacrificial layer, wherein the forming the package comprises: placing a device die over the sacrificial layer; encapsulating the device die and the upper portion of the metal post in an encapsulating material; and planarizing the encapsulating material and the device die, so that a top surface of the encapsulating material and a top surface of the device die are coplanar; and after the planarizing, removing an entirety of the sacrificial layer and the carrier from the package. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #15, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #18 of the instant application, which states, a method comprising: forming a sacrificial layer over a carrier; forming a package over the sacrificial layer, wherein the forming the package comprises: placing a device die over the sacrificial layer; encapsulating the device die in a molding compound; and planarizing the molding compound and the device die; and after the planarizing, performing an etching process on the sacrificial layer to reveal a layer that contacts the sacrificial layer.
Claim #19 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, which discloses, method comprising: wherein the HMDS layer is removed in a same process as a process for removing the carrier from the package. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #20, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #19 of the instant application, which states, a method comprising: further comprising, after the molding compound is planarized, separating the carrier from the sacrificial layer.
Claim #20 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim #18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, which discloses, method wherein the sacrificial layer comprises a blanket metal layer, and wherein the removing the sacrificial layer comprises etching the blanket metal layer. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand that the claimed structure of claim #18, of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378, produces the same semiconductor structure as that in claim #20 of the instant application, which states, a method wherein at a time the etching process is started, the sacrificial layer is a blanket layer.
//
Claims #2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims #1, 3, 5, 6, 15 of Hu et al., (U.S. Patent No. U.S. 11,355,378), hereinafter referred to as "Hu" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Debe et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,521,324), hereinafter referred to as “Debe”.
Hu substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Hu, fails to show, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein when the forming the sacrificial layer is performed, the sacrificial layer is heated.
Debe teaches, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein when the forming the sacrificial layer (organic layer) (column #6, line 54-59) is performed, the sacrificial layer is heated (column #7, line 65-67; column 8, line 1-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #2, to modified the invention of Hu as modified by the invention of Debe, which teaches, a method wherein when the forming the sacrificial layer is performed, the sacrificial layer is heated, to incorporate a structural condition that would induce a physical change in the deposited organic layer, as taught by Debe.
///
Claim #4 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims #1, 3, 5, 6, 15 of Hu et al., (U.S. Patent No. 11,355,378), hereinafter referred to as "Hu" as modified by Debe et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,521,324), hereinafter referred to as “Debe” as shown in the rejection of claim #3 above and in further view of Ohgo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0113671), hereinafter referred to as “Ohgo”.
Hu as modified by Debe, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection claim #3 above.
Hu as modified by Debe, fails to show, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the HMDS is conducted for a duration of time between about two minutes and about 5 minutes.
Ohgo teaches, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the HMDS is conducted for a duration of time between about two minutes and about 5 minutes (paragraph 0067, 0100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Hu as modified by Debe, with the invention of Ohgo, which teaches, a method wherein the HMDS is conducted for a duration of time between about two minutes and about 5 minutes, to incorporate a structural condition that would induce to enhance the adhesive nature of the area, as taught by Ohgo.
//
Claim #5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims #1, 3, 5, 6, 15 of Hu et al., (U.S. Patent No. U.S. 11,355,378), hereinafter referred to as "Hu" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Enicks et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0102498), hereinafter referred to as “Enicks”.
Hu substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Hu, fails to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the sacrificial layer has a thickness smaller than about 20 angstroms.
Enicks teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the sacrificial layer has a thickness smaller than about 20 angstroms (paragraph 0142).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Hu as modified by the invention of Enicks, which teaches, a method wherein the sacrificial layer has a thickness smaller than about 20 angstroms, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide optimal adhesion without pattern bridging, yield minimal critical dimension loss, provide enhanced electrical performance and providing uniform thickness, as taught by Enicks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims #7, 8, 13-17 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While the prior art teaches a method comprising: forming an adhesive layer over a carrier; forming a sacrificial layer over the adhesive layer; forming a dielectric layer over the sacrificial layer; attaching a device die over the dielectric layer; encapsulating the device die in an encapsulant; de-bonding a package comprising the device die and the encapsulant from the carrier, wherein during a period of time starting from a first time the dielectric layer is formed and ending at a second time the package is de-bonded, the sacrificial layer remains to be a blanket layer; and removing the sacrificial layer, (Hu et al., 11,355,378; Hsia et al., 2015/0093844 A1, Lo et al. 2014/0021583; Ohgo et al., 2003/0113671; Enicks et al., 2015/0102498), it fails to teach either collectively or alone, with respect to claim #7, a method comprising depositing a seed layer comprising a portion in the dielectric layer; forming a through-via based on the seed layer; and after the package is de-bonded from the carrier, etching a metal layer of the seed layer, wherein the sacrificial layer is removed in a same process as the etching of the metal layer. Furthermore, with respect to claim #13, the prior art fails to teach either collectively or alone, a method wherein the sacrificial layer is deposited on an adhesive layer, and the method further comprises, after the metal posts are encapsulated, removing the adhesive layer.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. 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.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2816
05/21/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights