DETAILED ACTION
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 seed layer at least covers partial surface of the conductive component and a signal contact of the die, and electrically connects the conductive component and the die” (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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 10 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.
In lines 1-3, the applicant states “the seed layer at least covers partial surface of the
conductive component and a signal contact of the die, and electrically connects the conductive component and the die.”; however, it is unclear (see, for example, FIG. 2A) how the same seed layer 61 can cover both the conductive component 30 and the signal contact 21. Further, the seed layer 61 does not electrically connect the conductive component 30 and die 20 because of the second protective layer 82. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 thru 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. US 2022/0344228 A1 in view of Kononchuk et al US 6,583,024 B1. Ho discloses (see, for example, FIG. 9) an ultra-thin package component comprising a die 100; at least one conductive component 90, mounted by a side of the die 100; wherein a bottom surface of the at least one conductive component 90 is electrically connected to the backside of the base layer through a backside circuit 98; an encapsulant layer 30, surrounding and covering the side of the die 100 and a side of the conductive component 90, and exposing surfaces and backsides of the die 100 and the conductive component 90; multiple conductive contacts 122a/122b/122c, formed on the surfaces of the die 100 and the conductive component 90, and electrically contacting the die 100 and the conductive component 90. Ho does not disclose the die having base layer and an epitaxy layer, wherein the thickness of the base layer is no more than four times the thickness of the epitaxy layer. However, Kononchuk discloses (see, for example, FIG. 3) a semiconductor wafer having a base layer 12, and an epitaxy layer 14. In column 3, lines 58-column 4, lines 20, Kononchuk discloses an epitaxy layer 14 with a relatively thick epitaxial layer, which forms a high resistivity, defect free surface. Even though Kononchuk does not explicitly state the thickness of the base layer being no more than four times the thickness of the epitaxy layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the thickness of the base layer being no more than four times the thickness of the epitaxy layer in order to form a high resistivity, defect free surface away from the base layer, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Ho in view of Kononchuk does not explicitly state the ratio of the thickness of the epitaxy layer to the thickness of the base layer is ranged from 1:4 to 1:3; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the ratio of the thickness of the epitaxy layer to the thickness of the base layer is ranged from 1:4 to 1:3 in order to form a high resistivity, defect free surface away from the base layer, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, see, for example, FIG. 2B wherein Ho discloses the die 160 being respectively placed within an opening 51 formed between two of the conductive components 50, the thickness of the conductive component 50 being equal to the height of the die 60.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “formed by using pattern plating or tenting process.”
this is a product-by-process limitation that only recite methods of forming the final product wherein the claims are otherwise directed towards the structure of the final product.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “formed by using electroless plating or sputtering.”, this is a product-by-process limitation that only recite methods of forming the final product wherein the claims are otherwise directed towards the structure of the final product.
Regarding claim 8, see, for example, paragraph [0058] wherein Ho discloses the conductive contact 122 including copper layer.
Regarding claim 12, Ho in view of Kononchuk does not specifically disclose the overall component height of the ultra-thin packaged component being less than 100 um; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the overall component height of the ultra-thin packaged component being less than 100 um in order to maximize space, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 2, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. US 2022/0344228 A1 in view of Kononchuk et al US 6,583,024 B1 as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 12 above, and further in view of Tojo et al. US 2013/0241040 A1. Ho discloses (see, for example, FIG. 9) an ultra-thin packaged component comprising a first protective layer 124 and a second protective layer 124; however, Ho in view of Kononchuk does not disclose an insulating layer, distributed on the surface of the encapsulant layer, insulatively separating the conductive contacts on the die and the conductive component, wherein the second protective layer is coplanar with the conductive contacts. However, Tojo discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1) a packaged component 1 comprising an insulating layer 21e on an encapsulant layer 15; insulatively separating the conductive contacts 18/19/20 from the conductive component 16. Tojo further discloses a second protective layer 21 that is coplanar with the unlabeled upper portions of the conductive contacts 18/19/20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulating layer, distributed on the surface of the encapsulant layer, insulatively separating the conductive contacts on the die and the conductive component, wherein the second protective layer is coplanar with the conductive contacts in order to prevent short circuits between the conductive contacts of the packaged component, and lessen the processing steps while forming the conductive contacts.
Regarding claim 11, see, for example, paragraph [0060] wherein Ho discloses the first
protective layer and the second protective layer being made of insulating dielectric material.
In view of the 112 rejection, claim(s) 5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. US 2022/0344228 A1 in view of Kononchuk et al US 6,583,024 B1 as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 12 above, and further in view of Olson et al. US 2019/0326255 A1. Ho in view of Kononchuk does not disclose the conductive contact is constituted with a stack of a copper layer, a tin layer and a seed layer. However, Olsen discloses (see, for example, FIG. 2F) a packaged component 140 comprising a conductive contact 40. In paragraph [0035], Olson discloses the conductive contact may include one or more layers of Cu, Sn, or other suitable electrically conductive material, including seed, … layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the conductive contact being constituted with a stack of a copper layer, a tin layer and a seed layer in order to have an interconnect structure with reliable electrical conductivity, adhesion, and robustness, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, see, for example, FIG. 2F wherein Olson discloses the conductive
contact 40 covers a portion of the insulating layer 36, and in FIG. 9 wherein Ho discloses the opening 51 filled with encapsulant layer 30.
Regarding claim 10, see, for example, FIG. 9 wherein Ho discloses conductive contacts (i.e. seed layer) covers the conductive component 90, and the signal contact 100b. Also see 112 rejection above.
Product-by-Process Limitations
5. While not objectionable, the Office reminds Applicant that “product by process” limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or otherwise. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Thus, no patentable weight will be given to those process steps which do not add structural limitations to the final product.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
Eugene Lee
July 1, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights