DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2024, 3/31/2025 and 12/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). For example, claims 1 and 9 recites the limitations “removing the removable carrier to expose at least a portion of the metallization facing the removable carrier” which do not appear to be shown in the Drawings of the current application. For example, the Drawings of the current application do not appear to show the exposure of a metallization facing the removable carrier once the removable carrier is removed. No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the die” in line 2 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the first die”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation “the metallization facing away from the removable carrier” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the surface of the metallization facing away from the removable carrier” in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “removing the removable carrier to expose at least a portion of the metallization facing the removable carrier” in lines 10-11 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim appears to contain contradicting subject matter. For example, the part of the limitation “to expose at least a portion of the metallization facing the removable carrier” should not be possible given that the removable carrier has already been removed and thereby there is no metallization facing the removable carrier at that point in time.
For the purposes of prosecution, the limitation “the metallization facing the removable carrier” will be interpreted as the metallization facing the opposite direction than the previously claimed “metallization facing away from the removable carrier”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the metallization facing the removable carrier” in lines 10-11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the terms “about” in line 4 of the claim, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “about 150 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the metallization” in lines 2-3 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claims 1 and 6 introduces different types of “metallization” elements, and thereby it is unclear which specific “metallization” is being referenced in the limitation “the metallization” in lines 2-3 of claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the metallization” in lines 2-3 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claims 1 and 7 introduces different types of “metallization” elements, and thereby it is unclear which specific “metallization” is being referenced in the limitation “the metallization” in lines 2-3 of claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the exposed portion of the metallization” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the metallization” in line 2 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 1, which claim 8 depends from, introduces different types of “metallization” elements, and thereby it is unclear which specific “metallization” is being referenced in the limitation “the metallization” in line 2 of claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the metallization facing away from the removable carrier” in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the surface of the metallization facing away from the removable carrier” in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “removing the removable carrier to expose at least a portion of the metallization facing the removable carrier” in lines 14-15 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because the claim appears to contain contradicting subject matter. For example, the part of the limitation “to expose at least a portion of the metallization facing the removable carrier” should not be possible given that the removable carrier has already been removed and thereby there is no metallization facing the removable carrier at that point in time.
For the purposes of prosecution, the limitation “the metallization facing the removable carrier” will be interpreted as the metallization facing the opposite direction than the previously claimed “metallization facing away from the removable carrier”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the metallization facing the removable carrier” in lines 14-15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note the dependent claims 2-8 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome objected subject matter and/or the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding independent claim 1, Standing (US 2017/0154856 A1) discloses a method of manufacturing a die package, the method comprising:
placing a first die 52 (“die”- ¶0110) comprising a frontside, a backside, a frontside metallization 54 (“metallisation”- ¶0109) on the frontside and a backside metallization 57 (“metallisation”- ¶0109) on the backside into at least one recess of a laminated carrier 50 (“core layer… FR4”- ¶0108) onto a removable carrier 63 (“carrier”- ¶0110) (see Figs. 4a-4b);
partially encapsulating the first die 52 such that a first encapsulating material 64 (“dielectric layer”- ¶0112) at least partially covers the metallization 54 facing away from the removable carrier 63 (see Figs. 5a-5c); and
removing the removable carrier 63 to expose at least a portion of the metallization facing the removable carrier (see Figs. 5a-5c).
Standing does not expressly disclose surface-treating the metallization facing away from the removable carrier by forming an adhesion promoter material onto the metallization facing away from the removable carrier and/or by roughening the surface of the metallization facing away from the removable carrier.
Thus, regarding independent claim 1 (which claims 2-8 depend from), the prior art of record including Standing, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “surface-treating the metallization facing away from the removable carrier 63 by forming an adhesion promoter material onto the metallization facing away from the removable carrier and/or by roughening the surface of the metallization facing away from the removable carrier”.
Regarding independent claim 9, Standing discloses a method of manufacturing a die package, the method comprising:
providing a wafer comprising a plurality of dies 52 (“die”- ¶0110), each die comprising a frontside, a backside, a frontside metallization 54 (“metallisation”- ¶0109) on the frontside and a backside metallization 57 (“metallisation”- ¶0109) on the backside (see Figs. 4a-4b);
placing at least one of the dies 52 into at least one recess of a laminated carrier 50 (“core layer… FR4”- ¶0108) onto a removable carrier 63 (“carrier”- ¶0110) (see Figs. 4a-4b);
partially encapsulating the dies 52 such that a first encapsulating material 64 (“dielectric layer”- ¶0112) at least partially covers the metallization 54 facing away from the removable carrier 63 (see Figs. 5a-5c); and
removing the removable carrier 63 to expose at least a portion of the metallization facing the removable carrier 63 (see Figs. 5a-5c).
Standing does not expressly disclose providing a wafer comprising a plurality of dies, roughening a surface of the frontside metallization of the dies or of the backside metallization of the dies, placing at least one of the dies into at least one recess of a laminated carrier onto a removable carrier with the roughened surface facing the removable carrier, singulating the wafer into the plurality of dies and surface-treating the metallization facing away from the removable carrier by forming an adhesion promoter material onto the metallization facing away from the removable carrier and/or by roughening the surface of the metallization facing away from the removable carrier.
Thus, regarding independent claim 9, the prior art of record including Standing, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “providing a wafer comprising a plurality of dies”, “roughening a surface of the frontside metallization of the dies or of the backside metallization of the dies”, “placing at least one of the dies into at least one recess of a laminated carrier onto a removable carrier with the roughened surface facing the removable carrier”, “singulating the wafer into the plurality of dies” and “surface-treating the metallization facing away from the removable carrier by forming an adhesion promoter material onto the metallization facing away from the removable carrier and/or by roughening the surface of the metallization facing away from the removable carrier”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nikitin et al. (US 2011/0198743 A1), which discloses a method of manufacturing a die package comprising placing a die with frontside and backside metallizations in a recess of a carrier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights