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 7/29/2024 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.
Claims 2-7, 11-14 and 18-19 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 2 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.1 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 3 recites “a distance” in line 2 of the claim, however “a distance” element was already introduced earlier in line 2 of claim 2, which claim 3 depends from, and thereby it is unclear whether the “a distance” in line 2 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the distance” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim 3 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.1 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 4 recites the terms “about” in lines 2-3 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.1 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 5 recites the terms “about” in lines 2-3 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.1 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 6 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.1 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 7 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.5 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 11 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.1 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 12 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.1 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 13 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.5 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 14 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.5 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 18 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.1 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 19 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “about” are 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 0.5 µm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Note the dependent claims 3 and 12-13 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8-10, 15-17 and 20 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 25 of Dallmann et al. (US 2012/0080795 A1, hereinafter “Dallmann”) discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
a seed layer 250 (“seed layer”- ¶0020) to a first semiconductor device 205 (“workpiece”- ¶0010, which includes layer 210);
a metallization layer 272 (“fill layers… metallic layers”- ¶0023) in physical contact with the seed layer 250, the metallization layer 272 having a first width; and
a second via 292 (“fill layer”- ¶0028) in physical contact with the metallization layer 272 and the seed layer 250, the second via 292 having a second width less than the first width.
Dallmann does not expressly disclose a first via to the first semiconductor device, the seed layer over the first via, and a dielectric material in physical contact with both the metallization layer and the second via, wherein the dielectric material is planar with the second via.
Thus, regarding independent claim 1, the claim is allowed, because the prior art of record including Dallmann, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “a first via to a first semiconductor device”, “a seed layer over the first via” and “a dielectric material in physical contact with both the metallization layer and the second via, wherein the dielectric material is planar with the second via”.
Regarding independent claim 8, Figure 25 of Dallmann discloses a
semiconductor device comprising:
a seed layer 250 (“seed layer”- ¶0020);
a first metallization layer 272 (“fill layers… metallic layers”- ¶0023) in physical contact with the seed layer 250; and
a second via 292 (“fill layer”- ¶0028) in physical contact with both the first metallization layer 272 and the seed layer 250, the second via 292 having a smaller width than the first metallization layer 250.
Dallmann does not expressly disclose the seed layer over a first via, the first via being electrically connected to a first external connection of a first die, the first die being encapsulated within an encapsulant, and a dielectric material over the first metallization layer and in physical contact with the second via, wherein the dielectric material is planar with the second via.
Thus, regarding independent claim 8, the claim is allowed, because the prior art of record including Dallmann, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “a seed layer over a first via, the first via being electrically connected to a first external connection of a first die, the first die being encapsulated within an encapsulant” and “a dielectric material over the first metallization layer and in physical contact with the second via, wherein the dielectric material is planar with the second via”.
Claims 9-10 are allowed as being dependent on allowed claim 8.
Regarding independent claim 15, Figure 25 of Dallmann discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
a first seed layer 250 (“seed layer”- ¶0020);
a first metallization layer 272 (“fill layers… metallic layers”- ¶0023) over and in physical contact with the first seed layer 250, the first metallization layer 272 comprising a first material throughout the first metallization layer 272; and
a second via 292 (“fill layer”- ¶0028) in direct physical contact with the first metallization layer 272 and the first seed layer 250, the second via 292 comprising a second material throughout the second via 292.
Dallmann does not expressly disclose a semiconductor die encapsulated within an encapsulant, a first via extending through a first dielectric layer to electrically couple to the semiconductor die, the first via having straight sidewalls from a top of the first via to a bottom of the first via, the first seed layer in electrical connection with the first via and a dielectric material covering sidewalls of both the first metallization layer and the second via, the dielectric material comprising a third material throughout the dielectric material, wherein a first surface of the second via facing away from the first metallization layer is exposed by the dielectric material, the dielectric material being planar with the second via.
Thus, regarding independent claim 15, the claim is allowed, because the prior art of record including Dallmann, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “a semiconductor die encapsulated within an encapsulant”, “a first via extending through a first dielectric layer to electrically couple to the semiconductor die, the first via having straight sidewalls from a top of the first via to a bottom of the first via”, “a first seed layer in electrical connection with the first via” and “a dielectric material covering sidewalls of both the first metallization layer and the second via, the dielectric material comprising a third material throughout the dielectric material, wherein a first surface of the second via facing away from the first metallization layer is exposed by the dielectric material, the dielectric material being planar with the second via”.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are allowed as being dependent on allowed claim 15.
Claims 2-7, 11-14 and 18-19 (which depend from allowed claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stecher (US 2009/0079080 A1), which discloses a semiconductor device comprising a via in physical contact with a seed layer and a metallization layer.
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