DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Kim fails to teach wherein a sidewall of the second portion extends from a top surface of the first portion at an obtuse angle.
The examiner respectfully submits that Kim explicitly teaches both isotropic and anisotropic etch processes for thinning the second portion, yielding etch profiles having either vertical sidewalls or angled sidewalls as in FIG. 5C and 5D. The profile of 5D includes an obtuse angle. Additionally, FIG. 2G of the instant application, which shows the closeup view of the area in question, appears to show a vertically etched sidewall. The applicants arguments further indicate that the angle is not critical or inventive as noted in cited paragraph [0014], and the profile of Kim in 5D clearly allows for encapsulating the solder ball within the juncture between the first and second portions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, 21 – 24 and 26 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2006/0035453) in view of Yu et al. (US 2018/0151453).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches (FIG. 3, 5D):
An apparatus comprising:
a package substrate (102/202) comprising buildup layers (laminate);
a layer (108/208) over the package substrate and comprising a pocketed pad and a conformal layer abutting the pocketed pad (108), and the pocketed pad comprising a first portion thinner than a second portion extending from the first portion (FIG. 3), wherein a sidewall of the second portion extends from a top surface of the first portion at an obtuse angle (FIG. 5D); and
a solder ball (110) within a pocketed region of the pocketed pad, wherein the conformal layer is on a top surface of the second portion (FIG. 3).
Kim teaches a structure which includes a protective layer with a pocket for holding solder balls on a laminated substrate package, but fails to expressly disclose that the materials of the protective layer include silicon and nitrogen.
However, Yu teaches a method for attaching a solder ball to a pad in a pocketed portion of a passivation layer (FIG. 6), wherein the passivation layer is formed of solder resist or SiN ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to include the passivation material layer of Yu 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 2, Yu teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conformal layer is on an entirety of the top surface of the second portion, and the solder ball abuts the conformal layer (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pocketed pad comprises copper ([0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein an intermetallic layer is between the solder ball and at least the top surface of the first portion of the pocketed pad (S30).
Regarding claim 6, Kim fails to expressly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the layer comprises silicon nitride (SiNx).
However, Yu teaches a method for attaching a solder ball to a pad in a pocketed portion of a passivation layer (FIG. 6), wherein the passivation layer is formed of solder resist or SiN ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to include the passivation material layer of Yu 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a surface finish layer on the pocketed pad (S20).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the surface finish layer comprises at least one of electroless nickel/electroless palladium/immersion gold (ENEPIG), electroless nickel immersion gold (ENIG), or organic solderability preservative (OSP) (S20).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches:
Regarding claim 10, Kim fails to expressly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate package includes surface routed high speed input/output (HSIO) comprised of copper traces.
However, Yu teaches distribution structures for routing signals from the solder ball connected pads.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include copper metal traces for routing signals from the external pads as taught by Yu to enable the device to function.
Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches ([0063]):
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a package comprising the package substrate, the layer, and the solder ball; and an integrated circuit mounted to the package.
Regarding claim 23, Kim teaches (FIG. 3, 5D):
An apparatus, comprising:
a package substrate comprising a core and buildup layers ([0062]);
a coupling layer (106) over the buildup layers and comprising a pocketed pad and a layer abutting the pocketed pad (108), and the pocketed pad comprising a first portion thinner than a second portion extending from the first portion, wherein a sidewall of the second portion extends from a top surface of the first portion at an obtuse angle (FIG. 5D); and
a solder ball (110) within the pocketed pad, wherein the layer is on a top surface of the second portion.
Kim teaches a structure which includes a protective layer with a pocket for holding solder balls on a laminated substrate package, but fails to expressly disclose that the materials of the protective layer include silicon and nitrogen.
However, Yu teaches a method for attaching a solder ball to a pad in a pocketed portion of a passivation layer (FIG. 6), wherein the passivation layer is formed of solder resist or SiN ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to include the passivation material layer of Yu 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 24, Kim teaches (FIG. 3):
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the layer is on an entirety of the top surface of the second portion, and the solder ball abuts the layer.
Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the pocketed pad comprises copper ([0008]).
Regarding claim 27, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein an intermetallic layer is between the solder ball and at least the top surface of the first portion of the pocketed pad (S30).
Regarding claim 28, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the layer comprises silicon nitride (SiNx).
Kim teaches a structure which includes a protective layer with a pocket for holding solder balls on a laminated substrate package, but fails to expressly disclose that the materials of the protective layer include silicon and nitrogen.
However, Yu teaches a method for attaching a solder ball to a pad in a pocketed portion of a passivation layer (FIG. 6), wherein the passivation layer is formed of solder resist or SiN ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to include the passivation material layer of Yu 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 29, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 23, further comprising a surface finish layer on the pocketed pad (S20).
Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the surface finish layer comprises at least one of electroless nickel/electroless palladium/immersion gold (ENEPIG), electroless nickel immersion gold (ENIG), or organic solderability preservative (OSP) (S20).
Regarding claim 31, Kim fails to expressly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the package substrate comprises surface routed high speed input/output (HSIO) comprising copper traces.
However, Yu teaches distribution structures for routing signals from the solder ball connected pads.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include copper metal traces for routing signals from the external pads as taught by Yu to enable the device to function.
Regarding claim 32, Kim teaches ([0063]):
The apparatus of claim 23, further comprising: a package comprising the package substrate, the coupling layer, and the solder ball; and an integrated circuit mounted to the package.
Claims 3 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2006/0035453) in view of Yu et al. (US 2018/0151453) as applied to claims 2 and 24 above, and further in view of Sugimoto et al. (US 2005/0253263) or Yamasaki et al. (US 6,674,017).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the solder ball abuts a sidewall of the conformal layer (FIG. 3).
Kim in view of Yu teaches solder balls sized which abut the sidewall of the conformal layer, but fails to expressly disclose a solder ball size relative to the pocket which is absent a top surface of the conformal layer over the top surface of the second portion.
However, Sugimoto or Yamasaki both teach well known solder ball to conformal pocket ratios which result in a solder ball which does not contact the upper surface of the conformal layer.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the solder balls of Kim in view of Yu to such a size that they fill the pocket without overlapping the upper surface of the conformal layer as taught by Sugimoto and Yamasaki, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 25, Kim teaches (FIG. 3):
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the solder ball abuts a sidewall of the layer.
Kim in view of Yu teaches solder balls sized which abut the sidewall of the conformal layer, but fails to expressly disclose a solder ball size relative to the pocket which is absent a top surface of the conformal layer over the top surface of the second portion.
However, Sugimoto or Yamasaki both teach well known solder ball to conformal pocket ratios which result in a solder ball which does not contact the upper surface of the conformal layer.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the solder balls of Kim in view of Yu to such a size that they fill the pocket without overlapping the upper surface of the conformal layer as taught by Sugimoto and Yamasaki, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624