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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024, 01/03/2025, 04/24/2025, 09/22/2025 and 03/27/2026. The submission 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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2021/0343638, as disclosed in the IDS).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As for claim 1, Chu et al. disclose in Figs. 1-19 and the related text a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
forming a first die 100, the first die comprising an active layer 110 over a substrate 102 and a tapered sidewall of a first dielectric layer 112 (Fig. 1-4);
attaching the first die between vias 216 on a first redistribution structure 206 (Fig. 7, [0028]);
encapsulating the first die and the vias with an encapsulant 242 (Fig. 8, [0029]); and
removing at least a portion of the first dielectric layer 112 to expose a sidewall of the encapsulant (Fig. 10, [0031]).
As for claim 2, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: depositing and patterning a second dielectric layer 246 within the encapsulant (Fig. 11-12, [0035]-[0037]); and
forming an electrical contact 256/260 through the second dielectric layer (fig. 14, [0040]).
As for claim 3, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the removing roughens a surface of the encapsulant [0033].
As for claim 8, Chu et al. disclose in Figs. 20-28 and the related text a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
removing a dielectric material 112 from within an encapsulant 242 and over a semiconductor die 100 (Fig. 9-10), wherein after the removing the dielectric material 112 the encapsulant comprises a tapered sidewall which extends over the semiconductor die (Fig. 20-28);
forming a dielectric layer 246 in physical contact with the semiconductor die and between the tapered sidewall and the semiconductor die (Fig. 21); and
forming a first redistribution layer 256 over the dielectric layer, the first redistribution layer 256 in electrical contact with the semiconductor die and a through via 260 extending from a first side of the encapsulant to a second side of the encapsulant (Fig. 24).
As for claim 15, Chu et al. discloses in Figs. 20-28 and the related text a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
encapsulating a through via 216 and a semiconductor die 100 with an encapsulant 242 (Fig. 8, [0029]), the through via 216 in electrical connection with a first redistribution layer 206;
replacing a first dielectric layer 112 with a second dielectric layer 246 in a first location (middle region of 100), the first location being located between the encapsulant 242 and the semiconductor die 100 in a direction perpendicular with the first redistribution layer (Fig. 20-22); and
electrically connecting the semiconductor die 100 with the through via 216 with a second redistribution layer 256/260, conductive elements of the second redistribution layer 256/260 extending through the second dielectric layer 246 (Fig. 24).
As for claim 16, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the first dielectric layer 112 comprises a polymer [0017], the polymer having the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
228
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chu et al. teach the first dielectric layer comprise polymer which is the same material as claimed invention, therefore it is capable that the polymer having the claimed structure above.
As for claim 17, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the replacing the first dielectric layer 112 removes all of the first dielectric layer (Fig. 20, [0053]).
As for claim 18, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the replacing the first dielectric layer 112 removes at least a portion of the first dielectric layer to expose a sidewall of the encapsulant 242, the sidewall of the encapsulant facing the semiconductor die (fig. 20, [0053]).
As for claim 19, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the semiconductor die 100 is an image sensor [0015].
As for claim 20, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the semiconductor die 100 is an ultrasonic fingerprint sensor [0015].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4, 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al..
As for claim 4 and 7, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the surface of the encapsulant has a roughness of between about 0.5 µm and about 0.7 µm; and the tapered sidewall has a first angle between about 50º and about 70º, the first angle being relative to a major surface of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include the surface of the encapsulant has a roughness of between about 0.5 µm and about 0.7 µm; and the tapered sidewall has a first angle between about 50º and about 70º, the first angle being relative to a major surface of the substrate, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As for claims 12-13, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the dielectric material has a glass transition temperature of between about 243 ºC and about 255 ºC; and the dielectric material has a decomposition temperature of between about 340 ºC and about 370 ºC.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implant dopant atoms between about the dielectric material has a glass transition temperature of between about 243 ºC and about 255 ºC the dielectric material has a decomposition temperature of between about 340 ºC and about 370 ºC, in order to reduce the resistivity of the device.
Generally, differences in temperature do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include the dielectric material has a glass transition temperature of between about 243 ºC and about 255 ºC the dielectric material has a decomposition temperature of between about 340 ºC and about 370 ºC, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. in view of Tuominen et al. (US 2021/0202427).
As for claim 9-10, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the dielectric material 112 comprises: a polymer base [0017].
Chu et al. do not disclose the dielectric material comprises an electron-attracting functional group, wherein the electron-attracting functional group comprises an ester group.
Tuominen et al. teach in [0047] disclose the dielectric material comprises an electron-attracting functional group, wherein the electron-attracting functional group comprises an ester group.
Chu et al. and Tuominen et al. are analogous art because they both are directed package structures and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chiu et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Chu et al. to include polyimide with an ester group as taught by Tuominen et al. in the combined device, in order to avoid current leakage.
As for claim 11, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the removing the dielectric material 112 comprises a wet etch process with an etchant [0017].
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. in view of Jun et al. (US 2013/0127295).
As for claim 12, Chu et al. disclose the method of claim 11, except the etchant comprises tetramethylammonium hydroxide.
Jun et al. teach in [0055] a wet etching method using tetramethylammonium hydroxide.
Chu et al. and Jun et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chu et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Chu et al. to include the limitations as taught by Jun in order to provide suitable etching process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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: “the removing roughens a surface of the vias”, as recited in claim 4. Claim 5 depends among objected claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3259. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 5712721670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRANG Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights