DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s invention filed on 08/01/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-25.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita (US 2022/0189895) in view of Chen (US 2004/0104484).
Regarding claim 1, Morita (see, e.g., figs.1 and 6) shows most aspects of the instant invention including an electronic package 10/50, comprising:
A package substrate 50/51
A pad 52 on the package substrate 50/51, wherein the pad 52 comprises copper (see, e.g., par. [0031])
A first layer 53 over the pad 52
A solder 30 over the first layer 53
A die 11 couple to the package substrate 50/51 by the solder 30
Morita, however, fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify that the first layer 53/153 comprises iron. Morita shows that the first layer 53/153 comprises chromium (see, e.g., par. [0034]), or nickel (see, e.g., par. [0062]). Chen, in a similar electronic package connection structure to Morita, teaches (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 2A) that the first layer 220 comprises iron (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0022], element 220 contains elements 226 and 228, which contain iron).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the chromium/nickel first layer of Morita or the iron first layer of Chen because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as barrier layer in soldering connection structures, as taught by Morita and by Chen, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Chen also shows that the first layer 220 comprising iron is in direct contact with the pad 216 comprising copper (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 2A) shows that the first layer 220 further comprises cobalt, and wherein the first the first layer 220 is a barrier layer (see, e.g., par. [0022], element 220 contains element 228, which is a barrier layer).
Regarding claim 3, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) shows that the first layer 153 further comprises nickel, and wherein the first layer 153 is a barrier layer (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0062]).
Regarding claim 4, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) shows an intermetallic compound 32 between the first layer 53 and the solder 30 (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows that the intermetallic compound between (220 and 230) comprises iron and tin (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0010]). Chen further shows that the barrier layer 228 (as part of the layer 220) which contains iron reacts with tin within the solder bump to form an intermetallic (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) shows that a thickness of the first layer 53 is approximately 1 µm or thicker (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Morita (see, e.g., figs.1 and 6) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a first level interconnect, comprising:
A pad 52, wherein the pad 52 comprises copper (see, e.g., par. [0031])
A first layer 53 over the pad 52, wherein a thickness of the first layer 53 is approximately 1 µm or thicker (see, e.g., par. [0064])
A solder 30 over the first layer 53
Morita, however, fails (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 6) to specify that the first layer 53 comprises iron. Morita shows that the first layer 53/153 comprises chromium (see, e.g., par. [0034]), or nickel (see, e.g., par. [0062]). Chen, in a similar electronic package connection structure to Morita, teaches (see, e.g., fig. 2A) that the first layer 220 comprises iron (see, e.g., par. [0022], element 220 contains elements 226 and 228, which contain iron).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the chromium/nickel first layer of Morita or the iron first layer of Chen because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as barrier layer in soldering connection structures, as taught by Morita and Chen, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Chen also shows that the first layer 220 comprising iron is in direct contact with the pad 216 comprising copper (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Morita: figs.1 and 6) shows that the solder 30 comprises tin (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 2A) shows that the first layer 220 further comprises cobalt (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0022], and element 228 as part of element 220).
Regarding claim 14, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) shows that the first layer 153 further comprises nickel (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) shows a layer between the first layer 53 and the solder 30, wherein the layer comprises an intermetallic compound 32 (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 2A) shows that the intermetallic compound (between 220 and 230) comprises iron and tin (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0010]). Chen further shows that the barrier layer 220 which contains iron reacts with tin within the solder bump to form an intermetallic (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0010]).
Regarding claim 19, Morita in view of Chen (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) shows that the first level interconnect couples a package substrate 50/51 to a die 11.
Claims 5-6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita in view of Chen in further view of Hua (US 2018/0047689).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 18, Morita in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 6 above). Morita in view of Chen shows the intermetallic compound 32 between the first layer 53 and the solder 30 (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]).
Morita in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify the thickness of the intermetallic compound 32 between the first layer 53 and the solder 30. However, differences in thickness values will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hua, in a similar device to Morita in view of Chen, teaches (see, e.g., Hua: figs. 4B and 5B) that the thickness T of the intermetallic compound (IMC) 535 depends of the reflow temperatures, the reflow times, and the compositions (see, e.g., Hua: par. [0026]). Hua further teaches that the thickness T of the intermetallic compound (IMC) 535 obtained at end of line of assembly is, e.g., 1-2 μm), and after two to four reflows following chip attachment is, e.g., 2-3 μm, and after temperature cycling testing is, e.g., about 3 μm (see, e.g., Hua: par. [0042]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the thickness of the intermetallic compound, and Hua has identified such thickness as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Morita in view of Chen.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita in view of Chen in further view of Arvin (US 2014/0339699).
Regarding claim 8, Morita in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 6 above). Morita shows a second layer 17 over a pad 16 on the die 11 (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]).
Morita in view of Chen, however, fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify that the second layer 17 comprises iron and cobalt or iron and nickel. Morita in view of Chen shows that the second layer 17/117 comprises zinc (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]), or nickel (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0062]). Arvin, in a similar electronic package connection structure to Morita, teaches (see, e.g., Arvin: fig. 2) that the second layer 18 comprises nickel and iron (see, e.g., Arvin: par. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the zinc/nickel second layer of Morita in view of Chen or the nickel/iron second layer of Arvin because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as barrier layer in soldering connection structures, as taught by Morita in view of Chen and by Arvin, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita in view of Chen in further view of Hsieh (US 2022/0278033).
Regarding claim 9, Morita in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 6 above). Morita in view of Chen shows a second pad 52 over the package substrate 50/51, wherein the second pad 52 is spaced away from the first pad 52 by a pitch.
Morita in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify that the pitch that spaces away the second pads is approximately 25 µm or less. However, differences in pitch values will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such pitch values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hsieh, in a similar device to Morita, teaches (see, e.g., Hsieh: 4B and 5B) that the second pads 210 are spaced away by a pitch d1. Hsieh further teaches that, due to limitations set by fabrication conditions, the second pads 210 are each required to have a specific size and a specific pitch with respect to different package substrates 20 of different specifications (see, e.g., Hsieh: par. [0038]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 30) of the pitch of the second pads, and Hsieh has identified such pitch as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Morita in view of Chen.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita/Chen in further view of Liang (US 2016/0175989).
Regarding claim 17, Morita in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 15 above). Morita in view of Chen shows an intermetallic compound 32 between the first layer 53 and the solder 30 (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]). Morita in view of Chen also (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 2A) shows that the intermetallic compound 228 comprises iron and tin (see, e.g., par. [0010]).
Morita in view of Chen, however, fails to specify that an intermetallic compound 32 comprises FeSn.sub.2. Liang, in a similar first level interconnect structure to Morita in view of Chen, teaches (see, e.g., Liang: figs. 1 and 3) that intermetallic compound comprises FeSn.sub.2 (see, e.g., Liang: par. [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the iron/tin intermetallic compound of Morita in view of Chen or the FeSn.sub.2 intermetallic compound of Liang because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as compositions for intermetallic compounds in soldering connection structures, as taught by Morita in view of Chen and by Liang, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 20-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita (US 2022/0189895) in view of Chen (US 2004/0104484) in further view of Liu (US 2020/0286847).
Regarding claim 20, Morita (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 6) shows most aspects of the instant invention including an electronic system, comprising an individual one of the first level interconnects that comprises:
A pad 52 comprising copper
A first layer 53 over the pad 52
A solder 30 over the first layer 53
A die 11 couple to the package substrate 50/51 with the first level interconnects
Morita, however, fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify that the first layer comprises iron. Morita shows that the first layer 53/153 comprises chromium (see, e.g., par. [0034]), or nickel (see, e.g., par. [0062]). Chen, in a similar electronic package connection structure to Morita, teaches (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 2A) that the first layer 220 comprises iron (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the chromium/nickel first layer of Morita or the iron first layer of Chen because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as barrier layer in soldering connection structures, as taught by Morita and by Chen, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Chen also shows that the first layer 220 comprising iron is in direct contact with the pad 216 comprising copper (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0020]).
Morita in view of Chen, however, fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify a board. Liu, in a similar electronic system structure to Morita in view of Chen, teaches (see, e.g., Liu: fig. 1) a board 106. Liu further teaches that the board comprises ajinomoto-build-up-film (ABF) material for TSVs having improved signal integrity and lower cost than that of conventional TSVs (see, e.g., Liu: par. [0015]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the board of Liu in the electronic system of Morita in view of Chen to include ABF material for TSVs having improved signal integrity and lower cost than that of conventional TSVs.
Liu also teaches (see, e.g., Liu: fig. 1) a package substrate 108 coupled to the board 106 with the second level interconnects 108.
Regarding claim 21, Morita in view of Chen in view if Liu (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) shows that the first layer 153 further comprises nickel, and wherein the first layer 153 is a barrier layer (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0062]).
Regarding claim 24, Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) shows an intermetallic compound 32 between the first layer 53 and the solder 30 (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu in further view of Dadvand (US 2019/0088608).
Regarding claim 22, Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu shows (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 45 above). Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu shows the first layer 53 (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]).
Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify the thickness of the first layer 53. However, differences in thickness values will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Dadvand, in a similar device to Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu, teaches (see, e.g., Dadvand: fig. 1) the thickness of the first layer 116. Dadvand further teaches that the copper has a lower rate of diffusion through the barrier layer 116 than through an equal thickness of nickel (see, e.g., Dadvand: par. [0026], and the desired thickness of the barrier layer depends of the reverse pulse plating waveform (see, e.g., par. [0034]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 30) of the thickness of first layer, and Dadvand has identified such thickness as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu in further view of Hsieh (US 2022/0278033).
Regarding claim 23, Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu shows (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 45 above). Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu shows a first level interconnects by a pitch (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6).
Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify that the pitch of the first level interconnects is approximately 25 µm or smaller. However, differences in pitch values will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such pitch values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hsieh, in a similar device to Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu, teaches (see, e.g., Hsieh: figs. 4B and 5B) that the first level interconnects 210 are spaced away by a pitch d1. Hsieh further teaches that, due to limitations set by fabrication conditions, the first level interconnects 210 are each required to have a specific size and a specific pitch with respect to different package substrates 20 of different specifications (see, e.g., Hsieh: par. [0038]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 30) of the pitch of the first level interconnects, and Hsieh has identified such pitch as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu in further view of Hua (US 2018/0047689).
Regarding claim 25, Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu shows (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 45 above). Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu shows the intermetallic compound 32 between the first layer 53 and the solder 30 (see, e.g., Morita: par. [0034]).
Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu fails (see, e.g., Morita: figs. 1 and 6) to specify the thickness of the layer of the intermetallic compound 32 between the first layer 53 and the solder 30. However, differences in thickness values will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hua, in a similar device to Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu, teaches (see, e.g., Hua: figs. 4B and 5B) that the thickness T of the layer of the intermetallic compound (IMC) 535 depends on the reflow temperatures, the reflow times, and the compositions (see, e.g., Hua: par. [0026]). Hua further teaches that the thickness T of the intermetallic compound (IMC) 535 obtained at end of line of assembly is, e.g., 1-2 μm), and after two to four reflows following chip attachment is, e.g., 2-3 μm, and after temperature cycling testing is, e.g., about 3 μm (see, e.g., Hua: par. [0042]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 30) of the thickness of the layer of the intermetallic compound, and Hua has identified such thickness as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Morita in view of Chen in view of Liu.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments, and finds them to be unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments involve discussing why the previously cited prior art documents fail to disclose the amended limitation. Examiner believes that the Morita and Chen references also disclose the amended limitation. The applicability of the Morita and Chen references to the amended limitation is indicated in the claim rejections above.
The applicants argue:
The teaching of Morita in view of Chen fails to disclose or otherwise render obvious that "the first layer comprising iron is in direct contact with the pad comprising copper”, as recited in exemplary claims 1, 11, and 20.
The examiner responds:
In view of the previous grounds of rejection, see, e.g., Morita: fig. 4, where Morita in view of Chen clearly shows the first layer 53 is in direct contact with pad 52. Also, in view of the previous grounds of rejection, see, e.g., Chen: fig. 2A, where Morita in view of Chen shows that the first layer 220 (that is an UBM layer that contains iron in the elements 226 and 228) is in direct contact with the pad 216 that contains copper.
Conclusion
This action is made final. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/YOUNES BOULGHASSOUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights