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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the objection of claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended structural features are covered by primary reference US-20060051954-A1 to Lin et al, and the amended functional limitations are insufficient to patentably distinguish claims 1 and 20 over the art of record. See below for more detail.
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 1-11 and 20 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 1 recites the limitation "the balls" and “the substrate” in the amended subject matter. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The correct term would be “the plurality of solder balls” and “the package substrate” to align with limitations earlier in the claim.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for depending from previously rejected claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the balls" and “the substrate” in the amended subject matter. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The correct term would be “the plurality of solder balls” and “the package substrate” to align with limitations earlier in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US-20060051954-A1 – hereinafter Lin) in view of Hiatt et al. (US-20060001141-A1 – hereinafter Hiatt).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a semiconductor device (Fig.5A; ¶0044), comprising:
a package substrate (Fig.4L 2; ¶0042) comprising one or more layers (Fig.4L 20; ¶0034);
a plurality of posts (Fig.5A 1; ¶0044), each post comprising a proximal end, a pillar portion (Fig.4L 53; ¶0042), a distal end (the posts 1 comprise these features), and a solder anchor portion (Fig.4L 55; ¶0042), each post (1) being coupled at the proximal end to a conductive point on a layer (Fig.4L 25; ¶0035) among the one or more layers (20) of the package substrate (2), each pillar portion (53) having a length extending along its axis between the proximal end and the distal end and a width at the distal end that is orthogonal to the length (Fig.4L geometry of post 1), each solder anchor portion (55) being coupled to the distal end of a corresponding post, wherein each solder anchor portion (55) has a width that is larger than the width of the distal end of the pillar portion (53) to which it is coupled (55 is wider than 53); and
a plurality of solder balls (Fig.4L 17; ¶0041), each solder ball (17) being disposed on and around the solder anchor portion (55) of a corresponding post (1), one or more solder balls (130) among the plurality of solder balls (17) and corresponding one or more posts (1) among the plurality of posts (1) forming conductive interconnects between corresponding conductive points on the package substrate (2) and corresponding contact points on a printed circuit board ("PCB") device (Fig.5A 3; ¶0044);
wherein the solder anchor portion (55) comprises a top region, a side region, and a bottom region, and a side region, a solder ball (17) of the plurality of solder balls (17) interfaces with the bottom region;
wherein each post (1) comprises an exposed region (Fig.4L 53; ¶0037) positioned outside the substrate (2) and free from the balls (17).
Lin does not teach wherein a solder ball of the plurality of solder balls interfaces with the top region and the side region, and
the exposed region being characterized by a stand-off height to reduce a board level stresses for the PCB.
Hiatt teaches an embodiment (Fig.9; ¶0050) with a solder anchor portion (Fig.9 39; ¶0050) having a top region, a bottom region and a side region with a solder ball (Fig.9 42; ¶0047) that interfaces with the top region, bottom region and side region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the solder ball of Lin (17 of Lin) interface with the top, bottom and side regions of the solder anchor portion (55 of Lin) of Lin as taught by Hiatt (Fig.9 of Hiatt) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the mechanical integrity of the solder connection (¶0005 of Lin).
Lin in view of Hiatt does not teach wherein the exposed region is being characterized by a stand-off height to reduce a board level stresses for the PCB.
The recited “stand-off height” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is the exposed portion of the post, which Lin clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. see also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on."). It is in this regard that the claim is considered met.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 1 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the conductive points (25 of Lin) on the package substrate (2 of Lin) comprise a plurality of conductive pads (Fig.4L 11; ¶0026 of Lin), each conductive pad (11 of Lin) being coupled to the proximal end of a corresponding post among the plurality of posts (1 of Lin).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 2 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein the plurality of posts (1 of Lin) is formed on the plurality of conductive pads (11 of Lin) using semiconductor package manufacturing processes comprising at least one of one or more photoresist film application processes, one or more image transfer processes, one or more pattern transfer processes, one or more material plating processes, one or more photoresist film stripping processes, or one or more reflow processes (Lin discloses electroplating ¶0006).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 3 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 3, wherein the plurality of posts (1 of Lin) is formed on the package substrate (2 of Lin) extending from a bottom layer of the package substrate (Fig.5A 2 of Lin), such that the plurality of solder balls (17 of Lin) is formed by forming a solder shell (¶0016 of Lin) around the solder anchor portion (55 of Lin) of each post (1 of Lin).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 1 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the solder anchor portion (55 of Lin) has a shape comprising one of a sphere, an ellipsoid, a hemisphere, a cylinder, a cone, a truncated cone, a triangular prism, a cube, a rectangular prism, a pentagonal prism, a hexagonal prism, an octagonal prism, or other three-dimensional polygon (Fig.4L of Lin depicts a rectangular shape for 55).
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 1 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein one or more posts among the plurality of posts (1 of Lin) are formed through two or more substrate layers (Fig.4L 20 of Lin has multiple layers) among the one or more layers of the package substrate (2 of Lin), wherein a cross-section of each of the one or more posts (1 of Lin) is continuous as it extends through the two or more substrate layers (20 of Lin), without geometrical transitions in the cross-section of each post that exceeds a proportion of a width of the cross-section as each post extends between adjacent substrate layers among the two or more substrate layers (20 of Lin).
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 8 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 8, wherein the cross-section of each of the one or more posts is one of the same within a threshold amount of deviation of 10%, continuously expanding, or continuously contracting as it extends through the two or more substrate layers (Fig.5A of Lin posts 1 are uniform).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hiatt, and further in view of Fjelstad. (US-8148199-B2).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 2 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 2.
Lin does not teach wherein the plurality of posts is formed on the plurality of conductive pads using wire bonding processes.
Fjelstad teaches wire bonding processes being a common way to connect semiconductor components such as die bond pads (col 1 line 53-55 of Fjelstad).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a wire bonding process (col.1 line 53-55 of Fjelstad) to connect the posts (1 of Lin) and conductive pads (11 of Lin) as this is a common practice in the art as proven by the teaching reference.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt, and further in view of Fjelstad from claim 5 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 5, wherein the plurality of posts (1 of Lin) is formed on the package substrate (2 of Lin) extending from a bottom layer of the package substrate (Fig.5A 2 of Lin), such that the plurality of solder balls (17 of Lin) is formed by applying molten solder material (¶0016 of Lin) to the solder anchor portion (55 of Lin) of each post (1 of Lin).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hiatt, and further in view of Jones et al. (US-20220208670-A1 – hereinafter Jones).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 1 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1.
Lin does not teach wherein two or more posts among the plurality of posts are connected to each other via one or more cross bars.
Jones teaches a device (Fig.5C 200'"; ¶0075 of Jones) with multiple conductive posts (Fig.5C 595; ¶0075 of Jones) connected via a cross bar (Fig.5C 591; ¶0075 of Jones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the cross bar of Jones (591 of Jones) to the posts taught by Lin (1 of Lin) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would be motivated to make this modification for additional of signal redistribution between the conductive posts.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linin view of Hiatt, and further in view of Yeruva et al. (US-20180122762-A1 – hereinafter Yeruva).
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned combination of Lin in view of Hiatt from claim 1 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1.
Lin does not teach wherein the length of the pillar portion of each of the plurality of posts is different from that of one or more adjacent posts, wherein the length of the pillar portion of each post is based on heights of corresponding contact points on the PCB and is not solely based on warpage of the package substrate, wherein the heights of the corresponding contact points on the PCB are determined based on a scan of a surface of the PCB.
Yeruva teaches a semiconductor device assembly (Fig.2B 100; ¶0014 of Yeruva) having a die (Fig.2A 111; ¶0015 of Yeruva) with conductive structures (Fig.2B 115a and 115b; ¶0016 of Yeruva) of different lengths for matching a corresponding substrate (Fig.2A 130 ¶0016 of Yeruva).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a conductive structure arrangement taught by Yeruva (100 of Yeruva) with conductive structures of different lengths on the structure taught by Lin (Fig.4L of Lin) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would use this arrangement to complement the varying profile of an irregular substrate if needed (¶0011 of Yeruva).
Regarding claim 20, Lin teaches a semiconductor device (Fig.5A; ¶0044), comprising:
a package substrate (Fig.4L 2; ¶0042) comprising one or more bottom layers (Fig.4L 20; ¶0034);
a plurality of posts (Fig.5A 1; ¶0044), each post comprising a proximal end, a pillar portion (Fig.4L 53; ¶0042), and a distal end, each post (1) being coupled at the proximal end to a conductive point (Fig.4L 25; ¶0035) on a bottom layer among the one or more bottom layers of the package substrate (Fig.5A 2), each pillar portion (53) having a length extending along its axis between the proximal end and the distal end and a width at a distal end of thereof that is orthogonal to the length (cylinder geometry);
a solder anchor portion (Fig.5A 55; ¶0042), each solder anchor portion (55) being coupled to the distal end of a corresponding post among the plurality of posts (1), wherein each solder anchor portion (55) has a width that is larger than the width of the distal end of the pillar portion to which it is coupled (Fig.4L 55 is wider than 55); and
a plurality of solder balls (Fig.4L 17), each solder ball (17) being disposed on and around the solder anchor portion (55) of a corresponding post (1), one or more solder balls (17) among the plurality of solder balls (17) and corresponding one or more posts among the plurality of posts (1) forming conductive interconnects between corresponding conductive points on the package substrate (2) and corresponding contact points on a printed circuit board ("PCB") device (Fig.5A 3; ¶0044);
wherein the solder anchor portion (55) comprises a top region, a side region, and a bottom region, and a side region, a solder ball (17) of the plurality of solder balls (17) interfaces with the bottom region;
wherein each post (1) comprises an exposed region (Fig.4L 53; ¶0037) positioned outside the substrate (2) and free from the balls (17).
Lin does not teach wherein a solder ball of the plurality of solder balls interfaces with the top region and the side region; and
wherein the length of the pillar portion of each of the plurality of posts is different from that of one or more adjacent posts, wherein the length of the pillar portion of each post is based on heights of corresponding contact points on the PCB and is not solely based on warpage of the package substrate, wherein the heights of the corresponding contact points on the PCB are determined based on a scan of a surface of the PCB.
Hiatt teaches an embodiment (Fig.9; ¶0050) with a solder anchor portion (Fig.9 39; ¶0050) having a top region, a bottom region and a side region with a solder ball (Fig.9 42; ¶0047) that interfaces with the top region, bottom region and side region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the solder ball of Lin (17 of Lin) interface with the top, bottom and side regions of the solder anchor portion (55 of Lin) of Lin as taught by Hiatt (Fig.9 of Hiatt). A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the mechanical integrity of the solder connection (¶0005 of Lin).
Lin in view of Hiatt does not teach wherein the length of the pillar portion of each of the plurality of posts is different from that of one or more adjacent posts, wherein the length of the pillar portion of each post is based on heights of corresponding contact points on the PCB and is not solely based on warpage of the package substrate, wherein the heights of the corresponding contact points on the PCB are determined based on a scan of a surface of the PCB.
Yeruva teaches a semiconductor device assembly (Fig.2B 100; ¶0014 of Yeruva) having a die (Fig.2A 111; ¶0015 of Yeruva) with conductive structures (Fig.2B 115a and 115b; ¶0016 of Yeruva) of different lengths for matching a corresponding substrate (Fig.2A 130 ¶0016 of Yeruva).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a conductive structure arrangement taught by Yeruva (100 of Yeruva) with conductive structures of different lengths on the structure taught by Lin (Fig.4L of Lin) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would use this arrangement to complement the varying profile of an irregular substrate if needed (¶0011 of Yeruva).
Lin in view of Hiatt, and further in view of Yeruva does not teach wherein the exposed region is being characterized by a stand-off height to reduce a board level stresses for the PCB.
The recited “stand-off height” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is the exposed portion of the post, which Lin clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. see also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on."). It is in this regard that the claim is considered met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights