Patent Application 18099056 - SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PACKAGE AND METHOD OF

Title: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PACKAGE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Application Information

Invention Title: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PACKAGE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
Application Number: 18099056
Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-01-19T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-01-19T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 257
National Sub-Class: 698000
Examiner Employee Number: 81639
Art Unit: 2898
Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

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 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Additionally, claim 1-10 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.

The claims require a distinct structural element of a “protective layer.”. Per claim 2 it is required that the protective layer have an upper surface between the uppermost surface of the intermediate structure and a lower surface of the at least one conductive element. However, the specification, including figures 1, 2A, and 3A, fails to provide an adequate written description and/or enablement for this limitation. These figures do not clearly illustrate any portion of the encapsulant that meets this spatial requirement. In particular, the figures do not show an interface surface of the protective layer located between the uppermost surface of the intermediate structure and a lower surface of the at least one conductive element. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not be able to ascertain from the specification that the inventors possessed the invention as claimed, nor would they be enabled to make and use the invention as claimed.

Furthermore, it is unclear whether the 'protective layer' is a distinct film within the encapsulant or a specific region of the encapsulant. This lack of clarity renders the claims indefinite because a person skilled in the art would be unable to determine the precise structural boundaries of the claimed 'protective layer.' Furthermore, the specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention, as the structural implementation of the 'protective layer' is not adequately disclosed

Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1020 are objected to for lack of clarity. The claims, as a whole, employ vague and imprecise terminology, making it difficult to determine their exact scope. This lack of clarity prevents a clear understanding of the invention and its boundaries, rendering the claims objectionable.
Appropriate correction is required.

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, all surfaces and structural relationships and structural elements recited in claims 1-20 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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 11337346 B2).

PNG
media_image1.png
798
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image2.png
372
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale

CLAIM 1. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device, comprising: an electronic component 1B; an intermediate structure L2 adjacent to the electronic component and comprising an interposer 20 and at least one conductive element 51 over the interposer; and a protective layer [this feature is unclear. As best understood it is simply some portion of encapsulant] covering the electronic component and having an upper surface substantially level with an upper surface of the at least one conducive element (Jung figs. 1-3).

For clarity, a 1-to1 matching between the features as best understood to directly correspond to the prior art is provided below. It is understood various analogous matched elements may vary in shape, however simple change in shape is understood as a obvious variant in the absence of unexpected results or benefits.

PNG
media_image3.png
928
1920
media_image3.png
Greyscale

CLAIM 2. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 1, wherein a horizontal level of the upper surface of the protective layer is between an uppermost surface of the intermediate structure and a lower surface of the at least one conductive element (Jung figs. 1-3 – The location is not under stood from the disclosure or figures provided in the originally filed application.).

CLAIM 3. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 2, wherein an upper surface of the electronic component is lower than the lower surface of the at least one conductive element (Jung figs. 1-3 – The location is not under stood from the disclosure or figures provided in the originally filed application.).

CLAIM 4. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one conductive element is connected to the interposer through a first electrical connection (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 5. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 1, wherein the interposer is connected to the carrier through a second electrical connection, and wherein a material of the at least one conductive element is different from a material of the second electrical connection (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 6. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 4, wherein an electrical conductivity of the at least one conductive element is greater than an electrical conductivity of the second electrical connection (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 7. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one conductive element is tapered from the interposer toward the upper surface of the protective layer (Jung figs. 1-3 – The location is not under stood from the disclosure or figures provided in the originally filed application.).

CLAIM 8. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 1, wherein a plurality of the conductive elements are over the interposer, and wherein a distance between the conductive elements becomes greater from the interposer toward the upper surface of the protective layer (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 9. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 1, wherein a gap is formed between the conductive element and the protective layer(Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 10. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 8, further comprising a third electrical connection filled in the gap, wherein the third electrical connection has a portion protruded from the protective layer (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 11. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one conductive element has a protrusion adjacent to the upper surface of the protective layer, and wherein, in a cross-sectional view, the protrusion vertically cover the protective layer (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 12. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device, comprising: a substrate 10; an electronic component 1A disposed over the substrate; an interposer 20 disposed over the substrate; and a non-reflowable element 25 disposed over the substrate and configured to electrically connect to the electronic component through the interposer and the substrate (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 13. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 12, further comprising a reflowable element 51 connecting the interposer with the substrate (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 14. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 12, further comprising a conductive layer between the non- reflowable element 25 and the interposer 20, wherein the conductive layer is arranged on at least two sides [i.e. left/right side of the surface?] of the non-reflowable element (The intended scope unclear from the applicant’s written description and figures what conductive layer is located on at least two side (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 15. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 14, further comprising a finish layer connecting the conductive layer and the non-reflowable element (This limitation is unclear, as the finish layer is as best understood a end capping layer. It is unclear how it connects the conductive layer and the non-reflowable layer. As best understood from the written description the element would equate to element 28 in Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 16. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 12, wherein non-reflowable element comprises a conductive pillar tapered toward the interposer (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 17. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device, comprising; a substrate having a first surface; an interposer disposed over the first surface of the substrate through a first conductive element; and a second conductive element disposed over the first surface of the substrate and electrically connected to the first conductive element though the interposer; wherein the first conductive element includes a material different from a material of the second conductive element (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 18. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 17, wherein an electrical conductivity of the second conductive element is greater than an electrical conductivity of the first conductive element (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 19. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 17, further comprising an encapsulant covering the interposer, the first conductive element and the second conductive element, wherein the encapsulant exposes an upper surface of the second conductive element (Jung figs. 1-3).

CLAIM 20. Jung et al. disclose an electronic device of claim 19, further comprising a first electronic component disposed over the first surface of the substrate and a second electronic component disposed over a second surface of the substrate, which is opposite to the first surface of the substrate (Jung figs. 1-3).

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.

JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822

5/8/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898