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 .
Specification
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 (see MPEP § 606.01).
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
The following title is suggested: “SEMICONDUCTOR DIE PACKAGE HAVING A THINNED DIE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME.”
If Applicant does not agree with the suggested title above, Applicant must provide a new title that clearly reflects the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Substitute “moulding compound” with --molding compound-- in the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 2, line 5, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 2, line 7, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 3, line 3, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 10, line 5, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 10, line 10, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 10, line 12, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 14, line 3, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 15, line 3, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 17, line 4, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 18, line 2, substitute “claim 16” with --claim 17-- because “the second connection portion of the clip” in claim 18 is introduced in claim 17, not in claim 16. With this correction, claims 18 and 20 are identical and depend from the same claim. Accordingly, an appropriate correction is further required.
In claim 18, line 7, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 19, line 4, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
In claim 20, line 7, substitute “moulding” with --molding-- before “compound.”
Claims 4-9, 11-13 and 16 variously depend from claim 1, 2, 3, 10 or 15, so they are objected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US Pub. 2021/0313309; hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a method of manufacturing a manufacturing intermediate for a semiconductor package, the method comprising the steps of: providing a die (19a, 19b, 19c) (page 2, paragraph 21; see fig. 1A); at least partially encapsulating the die (19a, 19b, 19c) in a molding compound 27 (page 3, paragraph 30; see fig. 1B); and thinning the die (19a, 19b, 19c) (page 3, paragraph 33; see fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses wherein the step of thinning the die (19a, 19b, 19c) comprises thinning the die (19a, 19b, 19c) to at most around 100 µm (the height H2 is greater than 1 µm and less than or equal to 100 µm; page 3, paragraph 33; see fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen discloses wherein prior to the step of thinning the die, the die (19a, 19b, 19c) comprises a thickness of at least around 150 µm to 700 µm (the height H1 ranges from 5 µm to 775 µm; page 2, paragraph 24; see fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen discloses a manufacturing intermediate for a semiconductor package, comprising: a die (19a, 19b, 19c) (page 2, paragraph 21) having a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) (see figs. 1A and 1C); and a molding 27 (page 3, paragraph 30) encapsulating the die (19a, 19b, 19c) (see fig. 1B); wherein the first surface (top surface) of the die (19a, 19b, 19c) is exposed (see fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen discloses wherein the die (19a, 19b, 19c) comprises a thickness of at most around 100 µm (the height H2 is greater than 1 µm and less than or equal to 100 µm; page 3, paragraph 33; see fig. 1C).
Claims 1-3, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US Pub. 2021/0343547; hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang discloses a method of manufacturing a manufacturing intermediate for a semiconductor package, the method comprising the steps of: providing a die 122 (page 2, paragraph 15; see fig. 1); at least partially encapsulating the die 122 in a molding compound 137 (page 4, paragraph 35; see fig. 5); and thinning the die 122 (page 4, paragraph 36; see fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Chang discloses wherein the die 122 defines a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) (see fig. 4); the method further comprising: providing a base frame 148 (page 3, paragraph 33) having a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface); attaching the first surface (top surface) of the die 122 to the first surface (top surface) of the base frame 148 (the dies 122 may be flipped and mounted to a carrier 148; page 3, paragraph 33; see fig. 5); wherein the step of at least partially encapsulating the die 122 in a molding compound 137 comprises at least partially encapsulating the base frame 148 and the die 122 in the molding compound 137 (see fig. 5); and removing the base frame 148 to expose the first surface (top surface) of the die 122 (page 6, paragraph 55; see fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 3, Chang discloses wherein the step of at least partially encapsulating the base frame 148 and the die 122 in the molding compound 137 comprises leaving the second surface (bottom surface) of the base frame 148 exposed (see fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Chan discloses wherein the step of thinning the die 122 comprises abrading the die 122 (a griding process; page 4, paragraph 36; grinding a semiconductor substrate constitutes an abrading process because grinding removes material from the substrate through contact with an abrasive medium).
Regarding Claim 15, Chang discloses a manufacturing intermediate for a semiconductor package, comprising: a die 122 (page 2, paragraph 15) having a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) (see fig. 6); and a molding 137 (page 4, paragraph 35) encapsulating the die 122 (see fig. 6); wherein the first surface (top surface) of the die 122 is exposed (see fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Chen.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Chang fails to disclose explicitly wherein the step of thinning the die comprises thinning the die to at most around 100 µm.
However, Chen discloses wherein a height of the die (19a, 19b, 19c) is reduced from H1 to H2 after a thinning process, wherein the H2 is greater than 1 µm and less than or equal to 100 µm (page 3, paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain a desired thickness of the semiconductor die after the thinning process, as taught by Chen, in order to provide a die having a thickness suitable for subsequent packaging and assembly and thereby facilitate integration of the thinned die into the semiconductor package.
Regarding claim 8, Chang fails to disclose explicitly wherein prior to the step of thinning the die, the die comprises a thickness of at least around 150 µm to 700 µm.
However, Chen discloses wherein a thickness of the die (19a, 19b, 19c) before a thinning process has a height H1 ranging from 5 µm to 775 µm (page 2, paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the semiconductor die with a predetermined initial thickness before the thinning process, as taught by Chen, in order to allow the die to be thinned to a desired final thickness while maintaining sufficient structural integrity during the thinning and subsequent packaging processes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 17-20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 recites providing a clip having a first connection portion and a second connection portion; before the step of at least partially encapsulating the base frame and the die within a molding compound: attaching the first connection portion of the clip to the second surface of the die; attaching the second connection portion of the clip to the first surface of the base frame; and during the step of encapsulating the base frame and the die in a molding compound: encapsulating the clip in the molding compound.
Claims 17 and 19 recite a clip having a first connection portion and a second connection portion; wherein: the clip is encapsulated in the molding compound; the first connection portion is attached to the second surface of the die; and the second connection portion is exposed.
These features in combination with the other elements of the base claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 11-14, 18 and 20 variously depend from claim 10 or 17, so they are objected for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5977. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/CHEUNG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 September 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights