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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The three information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 26 Jun 2024, 17 Dec 2024, and 14 Apr 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the term “semicircle” in the last line of ¶[00090] does not match the drawing in FIG. 16A, which shows that the inner wall of each recess RS has a shape of a quarter-circle (in a plan view) whose radius is ΔR.
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 1–20 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 “wherein the inner wall of each recess is spaced apart by a certain width from the vertex on the second surface” in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim has not previously introduced “a vertex”, nor has the claim established the shape of the second surface (e.g., square, rectangle, tetrahedron), so there is no context in the claim itself for the second surface having a vertex.
Also, it is somewhat confusing to introduce “at least one recess at a corner of the base substrate” (line 9), but then later refer to “the recess” (once in line 10 and again in line 11), implying that there is only one recess. Then line 12 introduces “a plurality of recesses”. This creates some confusion with the limitation in line 11: “wherein the molding member includes a protrusion that fills the recess”. That is, if there is only one recess, then it makes sense that there is one protrusion that fills the one recess. On the other hand, if there are four recesses with one recess RS at each corner CN of the base substrate as shown in FIG. 16A, then the examiner is uncertain whether the claim is specifying that only one of the four recesses is filled by a protrusion, or the four recesses are filled by four protrusions, respectively. Based on FIGS. 16A and 16B and ¶[00090] of the specification, it appears that each of the four corners of the base substrate 110 has its own recess RS filled by its own protrusion 302 of the molding member 300.
The examiner suggests that the following amendment to claim 1 would provide antecedent basis for “the vertex” and resolve the indefiniteness regarding singular/plural recesses and protrusions:
“1. (Proposed Amendment) A semiconductor package, comprising:
a base substrate that includes a first surface and a second surface that face each other;
a plurality of first metal line patterns disposed on the first surface;
a plurality of second metal line patterns disposed on the second surface;
a plurality of vias that penetrate the base substrate and connect the first metal line patterns to the second metal line patterns;
a semiconductor chip disposed on the first surface; and
a molding member that covers the first surface and the semiconductor chip,
wherein the base substrate has a tetragonal shape having four corners in a plan view,
wherein the second surface has four vertices such that there is a vertex at each of the four corners where peripheral edges of the second surface intersect,
wherein the base substrate includes four recesses respectively located at the four corners of the base substrate,
wherein each recess extends from the first surface toward the second surface,
wherein the molding member includes four protrusions that fill the four recesses, respectively,
wherein each recess includes an inner wall with a rounded shape when viewed in a plan view, and
wherein the inner wall of each recess is spaced apart, in a plan view, by a certain width from the corresponding vertex on the second surface.”
Dependent claims 2–8 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) at least for the reason that they depend on independent claim 1 and therefore include all the limitations of claim 1 by reference, including the limitations identified above as either lacking antecedent basis or being indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the examiner does not understand the limitation “wherein the inner wall of the recess is a semicircle with a radius equal to the certain width when viewed in a plan view” in view of the drawing in FIG 16A, which shows that the inner wall of each recess RS is a quarter-circle. This rejection will be overcome by changing “a semicircle” to “a quarter-circle or a portion of a circle”. A “quarter-circle” is appropriate to a square or rectangular base substrate / second surface, as shown in FIG. 16A. A “portion of a circle” (the terminology used in claim 9) is appropriate to the general case of a tetrahedral shape for the second surface, in which case the four corners of the second surface are not necessarily right-angles.
Regarding claim 4, the term “vertices” lacks antecedent basis in “the recesses are formed on corresponding vertices of the second surface” because claim 1 did not introduce “a vertex” or “vertices”, as described above in the rejection of claim 1.
Also, in claim 4, the examiner finds the following limitation to be indefinite: “the recesses are formed on corresponding vertices of the second surface”. The prior mentions of “corner” or “vertex”—in “at least one recess at a corner” (claim 1) and in “the inner wall of each recess is spaced apart by a certain width from the vertex on the second surface” (claim 1)—suggest that the claimed “corner” and “vertex” are not identical items to one another. Vertices are understood to be points of intersection of the edges of the second surface (bottom surface 110b in FIG. 16B). The recesses RS are disposed in corner areas on the first surface (top surface 110a in FIG. 16B). Thus, in the context of the present application, the examiner understands a “vertex” to refer to a point, and a “corner” to refer to the area adjacent to the vertex where the recess is located (i.e., ‘adjacent’ as seen in a top/plan view). In view of this distinction between vertex and corner, and taking into account that the recesses RS are on the first (top) surface 110a of the base substrate 110, whereas the vertices are on the second (bottom) surface 110b, the examiner suggests changing the last line of claim 4 to: “the recesses are formed on corners of the first surface of the base substrate corresponding to vertices of the tetragonal shape of the second surface”.
Note that if the applicant uses the examiner’s proposed amendment to claim 1 (see above), then claim 4 should be cancelled because the “tetragonal shape” of claim 4 would be redundant over the proposed amendment to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it is somewhat confusing to introduce “at least one recess at a corner of the base substrate” (line 5), but then later refer to “the recess” (once in line 6 and again in line 7), implying that there is only one recess. Then line 8 introduces “a plurality of recesses”. This creates some confusion with the limitation in line 7: “wherein the molding member includes a protrusion that fills the recess”. That is, if there is only one recess, then it makes sense that there is one protrusion that fills the one recess. On the other hand, if there are four recesses with one recess RS at each corner CN of the base substrate as shown in FIG. 16A, then the examiner is uncertain whether the claim is specifying that only one of the four recesses is filled by a protrusion, or the four recesses are filled by four protrusions, respectively. Based on FIGS. 16A and 16B and ¶[00090] of the specification, it appears that each of the four corners of the base substrate 110 has its own recess RS filled by its own protrusion 302 of the molding member 300.
The examiner suggests that the following amendment to claim 9 would provide antecedent basis for “vertices” (in claim 12) and resolve the indefiniteness in claim 9 regarding singular/plural recesses and protrusions:
“9. (Proposed Amendment) A semiconductor package, comprising:
a base substrate that includes a first surface and a second surface that face each other;
a semiconductor chip disposed on the first surface; and
a molding member that covers the first surface and the semiconductor chip,
wherein the base substrate has a tetragonal shape having four corners in a plan view,
wherein the second surface has four vertices such that there is a vertex at each of the four corners where peripheral edges of the second surface intersect,
wherein the base substrate includes four recesses respectively located at the four corners of the base substrate,
wherein each recess extends from the first surface toward the second surface,
wherein the molding member includes four protrusions that fill the four recesses, respectively,
wherein each recess includes an inner wall with a portion of a circle or a portion of an ellipse shape in a plan view, and
wherein the base substrate is a printed circuit board (PCB).”
Dependent claims 10–17 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) at least for the reason that they depend on independent claim 9 and therefore include all the limitations of claim 9 by reference, including the limitations identified above as either lacking antecedent basis or being indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the feature “the at least one protrusion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this feature in the claim because neither claim 11 nor independent claim 9 has previously introduced “at least one protrusion”. If Applicant uses the proposed amendment to claim 9 (see above), then claim 11 would need to be amended for consistency; for example, claim 11 could be amended to state: “wherein a bottom surface of each protrusion is vertically spaced apart from the second surface”.
Regarding claim 12, the term “vertices” (line 6) lacks antecedent basis in “the first to fourth protrusions are formed on corresponding vertices of the second surface” because neither claim 12 nor independent claim 9 has previously introduced “vertices of the second surface”.
Also, in claim 12, the examiner finds the following limitation to be indefinite: “wherein the first to fourth protrusions are formed on corresponding vertices of the second surface”. The prior mention of “corner”—in “at least one recess at a corner” (claim 9)—suggests that the claimed “corner” (claim 9) and “vertices” (claim 12) are not identical items to one another. Vertices are understood to be points of intersection of the edges of the second surface (bottom surface 110b in FIG. 16B). The recesses RS are disposed in corner areas on the first surface (top surface 110a in FIG. 16B). Thus, in the context of the present application, the examiner understands a “vertex” to refer to a point, and a “corner” to refer to the area adjacent to the vertex where the recess is located (i.e., ‘adjacent’ as seen in a top/plan view). In view of this distinction between vertex and corner, and taking into account that the recesses RS are on the first (top) surface 110a of the base substrate 110, whereas the vertices are on the second (bottom) surface 110b, the examiner suggests changing the last two lines of claim 12 to: “wherein the first to fourth protrusions are formed on corners of the first surface of the base substrate corresponding to vertices of the tetragonal shape of the second surface”.
Note that if the applicant uses the examiner’s proposed amendment to claim 9 (see above), then claim 12 should be cancelled because the “tetragonal shape” of claim 12 would be redundant over the proposed amendment to claim 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein each of the plurality of recesses has the same radius”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the same radius” in the claim because neither claim 13 nor independent claim 9 has previously introduced “a radius” (of each inner wall). Also, claim 9 stated that the inner wall could have a shape (in a top/plan view) of either a portion of a circle or an ellipse. The “radius” limitation in claim 13 only makes sense in the case that the inner wall of each recess is a portion of a circle in a plan view (i.e., if the inner walls have the shape of portions of the curved side of a cylinder). The “radius” limitation in claim 13 is nonsensical in the case where the inner wall of each recess has a shape of an ellipse in a plan view. The lack of antecedent basis for “radius” and the indefiniteness of the use of “radius” to describe an elliptical shape would both be resolved with the following amendment to claim 13: “wherein the inner wall of each recess has a shape of a portion of a circle in a plan view such that the inner wall has a shape of a portion of a cylinder, and the inner wall of each of the plurality of recesses has a same cylindrical radius”.
Regarding claim 14, if Applicant uses the examiner’s proposed amendment to claim 9, then claim 14 would need to be amended for consistency to refer to “the four recesses” instead of “the plurality of recesses” (line 2).
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of protrusions are formed on corresponding vertices of the second surface” (page 6, top 2 lines). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “vertices” in the claim because the claim has not yet established that the second surface has a shape (e.g., tetragon, rectangle, or square) having straight sides and vertices where the straight sides intersect.
Also, “the top surface of the first solder resist layer” (last 2 lines) lacks antecedent basis.
Also, the following statement in the last 2 lines appears to contradict FIG. 16B: “the plurality of protrusions extends between the second surface and the top surface of the first solder resist layer”. FIG. 16B shows that the plurality of protrusions 302 extend downward from a level of a top surface of the first solder resist layer 124 to a level of the first surface 110a (not all the way down to the second surface 110b).
Also, the following statement from claim 18 appears to contradict FIG. 16B: “a molding member that includes a body that covers the first surface and the semiconductor chip and a plurality of protrusions that fill the plurality of recesses and extend between the second surface and the first surface of the dielectric layer at respective corners of the dielectric layer” (page 5, last 4 lines). FIG. 16B shows that the plurality of recesses 302 extend from a level of the first surface 110a downward a certain depth toward the second surface 110b (but not all the way down to the second surface 110b).
All of the aforementioned problems would be resolved with the following changes to the last portion of claim 18 (starting from the last paragraph on page 5):
“a molding member that includes a body that covers the first surface and the semiconductor chip and a plurality of protrusions that fill the plurality of recesses and extend from a level of the first surface downward a certain depth toward the second surface at the respective corners of the dielectric layer,
wherein the second surface has a tetragonal shape having four vertices at the respective corners of the dielectric layer in a plan view,
wherein the plurality of protrusions are formed on the respective corners of the dielectric layer corresponding to respective vertices of the second surface,
wherein the body of the molding member covers a top of the first solder resist layer, and
the plurality of protrusions extends level of a top surface of the first solder resist layer to the certain depth below the first surface.”
Dependent claims 19–20 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) at least for the reason that they depend on independent claim 18 and therefore include all the limitations of claim 18 by reference, including the limitations identified above as either lacking antecedent basis or being indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a layer that covers and contacts the side surfaces of the bumps” (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the side surfaces”. This rejection will be overcome by simply amending line 2 as “a layer that covers and contacts side surfaces of the bumps”.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Independent claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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. The closest prior art (cited in the Conclusion section below) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious at least the following portions of the claim (emphasis added),
“wherein a plurality of recesses are provided, and each recess includes an inner wall with a rounded shape when viewed in a plan view, and
wherein the inner wall of each recess is spaced apart by a certain width from the vertex on the second surface”,
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Independent claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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. The closest prior art (cited in the Conclusion section below) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious at least the following portions of the claim (emphasis added),
“wherein a plurality of recesses are provided, and each recess includes an inner wall with a portion of a circle or a portion of an ellipse shape in a plan view”,
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Independent claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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. The closest prior art (cited in the Conclusion section below) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious at least the following portions of the claim (emphasis added),
“a plurality of semiconductor chip pads disposed on the semiconductor chip;
a plurality of bumps between the semiconductor chip pads and the first metal line patterns”,
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Note that claim 18 of the present application shares most limitations in common with claim 16 of US Patent 12,057,357 B2. However, claim 18 does not represent double-patenting because it includes “bumps between the semiconductor chip pads and the first metal line patterns” (reading on the embodiment shown in FIG. 10 of the present application, see bumps 208), whereas said patent’s claim 16 instead has “a plurality of semiconductor chip pads on the semiconductor chip; a plurality of bonding wires that electrically connect the semiconductor chip pads to the first metal line patterns” (reading, e.g., on the embodiment shown in FIG. 16B, see bonding wires 230).
All of the dependent claims would also be allowed if amended to overcome the various rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) presented in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,057,357 B2 (from the IDS)—see claim 16 & FIG. 10; compare to claim 18 of the present application and FIG. 16B
US 2020/0111763 A1 (from the IDS)—see FIG. 8; recess regions Rad
US 2017/0162544 A1 (from the IDS)—see FIGS. 2A & 2B; trenches 111 are somewhat analogous to the recesses of the present application
JP 2016-115884 A (from the IDS)—see FIG. 2; grooves 7 are somewhat analogous to the recesses of the present application
US 2012/0048607 A1 (from the IDS)—see FIGS. 8A, 8B & 10A; recesses 27B / 27C / 27 are somewhat analogous to the recesses of the present application
US 7,833,881 B2 (from the IDS)—see first trenches 40 in FIG. 1C (analogous to the recesses of the present application); see front side portion 52 of the first protective material 50 and backside portion 74 of the second protective material 70 (analogous to the protrusions of the molding member of the present application)
KR 2005-0000833 A (from the IDS)—see FIG. 3; stepped portion 40 filled with mold portion 40 (analogous to the present application’s recess filled by a protrusion of molding member)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Mott whose telephone number is (571)272-2367. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, 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.
/A.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights