Attorney Docket Number: 010829-9766.US00
Filing Date: 08/25/2022
Claimed Priority Date: none
Inventors: Boo et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 12/31/2025.
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the final rejection mailed on 11/07/2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Amendment Status
The RCE submission filed on 12/31/2025 as an amendment in reply to the Office action mailed on 11/07/2025 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-16 and 21-24, wherein claims 8-14 and 16 remain withdrawn from consideration.
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, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads has a width that is 65 percent or less than a width of the bottom surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads” in the device of claims 1 and 21, as recited in claim 21
“wherein the solder connection encapsulates less than half of the upper portion of the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads and encapsulates greater than a quarter of the respective pillar of the plurality of pillars” in the device of claims 1 and 24, as recited in claim 24
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification fails to provide antecedent basis for claims 21 and 24, reciting, respectively and empirically, “wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads has a width that is 65 percent or less than a width of the bottom surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads” and “wherein the solder connection encapsulates less than half of the upper portion of the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads and encapsulates greater than a quarter of the respective pillar of the plurality of pillars”.
Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be entered.
Claims
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 23, “comprising an non-conductive filling” should read “comprising a non-conductive filling”
Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 has been amended to recite at least the new limitation of “wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads has a width that is 65 percent or less than a width of the bottom surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads”.
Applicant alleges that “Support for the amendments to the Claims in this Paper can be found throughout the Specification as filed (e.g., in paragraphs [0016], [0028], the Drawings as filed (figs. 2A, 2B), and the Claims as filed” (see, e.g., Remarks, page 10). However, a review of the written description and Applicant’s cited portions fails to find any support for the claimed top surface and bottom surface width percentage relationships, as the specification as originally filed provides no mention of any width percentage relationship between top and bottom surfaces of each of a plurality of extended bond pads. Moreover, the specification even directly states in paragraph 0012 of published application US 2024/0071990 that the elements and features shown in the drawings are not necessarily to scale, with certain dimensions or placements being potentially exaggerated. Similarly, and in accordance with the written description, a review of the Drawings fails to identify any top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads having a width that is 65 percent or less than a width of the bottom surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads. Accordingly, the newly amended limitations are directed to New Matter.
Claim 24 has been amended to recite at least the new limitation of “wherein the solder connection encapsulates less than half of the upper portion of the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads and encapsulates greater than a quarter of the respective pillar of the plurality of pillars”.
Applicant alleges that “Support for the amendments to the Claims in this Paper can be found throughout the Specification as filed (e.g., in paragraphs [0016], [0028], the Drawings as filed (figs. 2A, 2B), and the Claims as filed” (see, e.g., Remarks, page 10). However, a review of the written description and Applicant’s cited portions fails to find any support for the claimed encapsulation percentage amounts, as the specification as originally filed provides no mention of any solder connection encapsulation percentages for a plurality of extended bond pads and plurality of pillars. Moreover, the specification even directly states in paragraph 0012 of published application US 2024/0071990 that the elements and features shown in the drawings are not necessarily to scale, with certain dimensions or placements being potentially exaggerated. Similarly, and in accordance with the written description, a review of the Drawings fails to identify any solder connection encapsulating less than half of the upper portion of a corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads and encapsulating greater than a quarter of a respective pillar of the plurality of pillars. Accordingly, the newly amended limitations are directed to New Matter.
The applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or demonstrate explicit support for the claimed subject matter in the original disclosure (e.g., by citing specific excerpts from Specification or features in Drawings related to the claimed embodiment, as originally filed). A broad statement alleging support for the claimed subject matter will be considered non-persuasive.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurai (US 2020/0294903).
Regarding claim 1, Sakurai (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 6C) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor device assembly, comprising:
a semiconductor device 210/200 having a plurality of pillars 220 disposed on a frontside surface of the semiconductor device;
a substrate 13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21, including:
a solder mask layer 11 disposed on a frontside surface of the substrate; and
a plurality of extended bond pads 12 disposed on a frontside surface of the substrate and surrounded by the solder mask layer, the plurality of extended bond pads each having a lower portion 121 in parallel to the solder mask layer and an upper portion 122 having a top surface higher than a top surface 11a of the solder mask layer, wherein a vertical cross-section of the lower portion has a rectangular shape and a vertical cross-section of the upper portion has a trapezoidal shape;
wherein:
the semiconductor device 210/200 is directly attached to the substrate 13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21 by bonding each of the plurality of pillars 220 to the top surface of a corresponding one 12 of the plurality of extended bond pads 12 with a solder connection 300;
the solder connection partially encapsulates the upper portion 122 of the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads;
the solder connection partially encapsulates a respective pillar 220 of the plurality of pillars 220 that is vertically aligned with the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads
Regarding claim 2, Sakurai (see, e.g., fig. 6C and par.0025/ll.6-7) shows that the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 12 is substantially planar and at least partially extending above the top surface 11a of the solder mask layer 11.
Regarding claim 3, Sakurai (see, e.g., fig. 6C) shows that the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 12 is at least partially covered by a corresponding one of a plurality of solder connections 300 disposed between the plurality of pillars 220 and the plurality of extended bond pads.
Regarding claim 6, Sakurai (see, e.g., fig. 6C) shows that each of the plurality of extended bond pads 12 is connected with a corresponding one of a plurality of vias 14 of the substrate 13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21.
Regarding claim 7, Sakurai (see, e.g., fig. 1 and pars.0021-0022) shows that the substrate 13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21 is a printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 15, Sakurai (see, e.g., pars.0023/ll.8-10 and 0024/ll.10-11) shows that the plurality of extended bond pads 12 comprise copper, and wherein the solder mask layer 11 comprises a polymer material.
Regarding claim 22, Sakurai (see, e.g., fig. 6C) shows that a bottom surface of the solder connection 300 is elevated above the top surface 11a of the solder mask layer 11.
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.
Claims 4-5, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai.
Regarding claim 4, Sakurai shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 20-21 above). Sakurai (see, e.g., par.0026/ll.7-8) additionally shows that the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 12 is higher than that of the solder mask layer 11 by 5 µm to 10 µm.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in height will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences 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).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed height difference, i.e., 5 µm to 10 µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Sakurai.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height difference 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).
Regarding claim 5, Sakurai shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 20-21 above). Sakurai (see, e.g., par.0026/ll.12-17) additionally shows that each of the plurality of extended bond pads 12 has a bottom surface, wherein a thickness vertically between the top surface and the bottom surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads is close to 30 µm.
Nevertheless, differences in thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences 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).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed thickness, i.e., close to 30µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Sakurai. See the comments stated in paragraphs 29-34 above with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 21, Sakurai shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 20 above). Sakurai (see, e.g., par.0025/ll.9-12) further shows that the lower portion 121 of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 12 has a bottom surface, and wherein the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads has a width less than a width of the bottom surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads, wherein Sakurai further teaches that the width of the top surface is approximately 65 percent or less than a width of the bottom surface. However, Sakurai fails to explicitly specify that the width of the top surface is 65 percent or less than a width of the bottom surface.
However, and nevertheless, differences in width will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences 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). Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed width difference, i.e., 65 percent or less, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Sakurai. See the comments stated in paragraphs 29-34 above with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 24, Sakurai (see, e.g., fig. 6C) appears to show that the solder connection 300 encapsulates less than half of the upper portion 122 of the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads 12 and encapsulates greater than a quarter of the respective pillar 220 of the plurality of pillars. Sakurai, however, fails to explicitly specify the numerical less than half and greater than a quarter encapsulation amounts.
However, and nevertheless, differences in area amount or percentage will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences 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). Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed encapsulation area percentages, i.e., less than half and greater than a quarter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Sakurai. See the comments stated in paragraphs 29-34 above with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claims 1-6, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2009/0146303) in view of Jang (US 2022/0199511).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2, 2A, and 4 and pars.0140 and 0166/ll.1-2) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor device assembly comprising:
a semiconductor device 104 having a plurality of pillars 110/120 disposed on a frontside surface of the semiconductor device; and
a substrate 102, including:
a solder mask layer 118 disposed on a frontside surface 101 of the substrate 102; and
a plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) disposed on the frontside surface of the substrate and surrounded by the solder mask layer 118, the plurality of extended bond pads each having a lower portion (e.g., 117) in parallel to the solder mask layer and an upper portion (e.g., 108/121) having a top surface higher than a top surface of the solder mask layer, wherein a vertical cross-section of the lower portion has a rectangular shape and a vertical cross section of the upper portion appears to have a trapezoidal shape;
wherein:
the semiconductor device 104 is directly attached to the substrate by bonding each of the plurality of pillars 110/120 of the semiconductor device to the top surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) with a solder connection 106;
the solder connection partially encapsulates the upper portion (e.g., 108/121) of the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads; and
the solder connection partially encapsulates a respective pillar 110/120 of the plurality of pillars that is vertically aligned with the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads
Kwon teaches that Kwon’s extended bond pads have an upper portion, wherein Kwon appears to show that a vertical cross-section of the upper portions of the plurality of extended bond pads have a trapezoidal shape (see, e.g., Kwon: fig. 2A). Kwon further teaches that Kwon’s extended bond pad upper portions may take on many different shapes not limited to Kwon’s explicit illustrations (see, e.g. par.0155). Kwon, however, fails to explicitly specify that a vertical cross-section of Kwon’s upper portion has a trapezoidal shape. Jang, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Kwon, teaches a semiconductor device assembly 1 having extended bond pads 130/140, wherein the extended bond pads comprise, in a vertical cross-section, an upper portion 130 having a trapezoidal shape and a lower portion 140 having a rectangular shape (see, e.g., Jang: figs. 1-2 and 6). Jang teaches that the upper portion of extended bond pads can comprise various vertical cross-section shapes without compromising the functionality of the extended bond pads (see, e.g., Jang: figs. 3A-3C), and further teaches that when the upper portion is a trapezoid of specific dimensions, the ease of alignment between the extended bond pads and a semiconductor die, the electrical connection between conductive connections 530 and the extended bond pads, and the bonding reliability between the conductive connections and the extended bond pads may be ensured (see, e.g., Jang: fig. 6 and pars.0056-0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have, in a vertical cross-section, the upper portions of Kwon’s extended bond pads comprise trapezoidal shapes, as taught by Jang, so as to ensure the ease of alignment between Kwon’s extended bond pads and semiconductor device, the electrical connection between Kwon’s conductive solder connections and extended bond pads, and the bonding reliability between Kwon’s conductive solder connections and extended bond pads.
Nevertheless, Kwon shows all aspects of the instant invention (see, e.g., paragraph 29 above), except for explicitly specifying the trapezoid-shaped vertical cross-sections of the upper portions of the extended bond pads. Kwon shows instead (see, e.g., fig. 2 and 2A) that the upper portions of the extended bond pads can have a rectangular shape or appear to have a trapezoidal shape in a vertical cross section. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having extended bond pads with an upper portion comprising a vertical cross-section having a trapezoidal shape and a lower portion having a rectangular shape, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality (see next paragraph below), this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the upper and lower portion vertical cross-section shapes disclosed by Kwon as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular upper and lower portion vertical cross-section shapes claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous upper and lower portion vertical cross-section shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed upper and lower portion vertical cross-section shapes 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).
Regarding claim 2, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 2A) shows that the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) is substantially planar and at least partially extending above the top surface of the solder mask layer 118.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 2A) shows that the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) is at least partially covered by a corresponding one 106 of a plurality of solder connections 106 disposed between the plurality of pillars 110/120 and the plurality of extended bond pads.
Regarding claim 4, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 2A) teaches that the top surface of the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) is higher than that of the solder mask layer 118. However, Kwon is silent with respect to the exact height difference between the top surface of the plurality of extended bond pads and the solder mask layer.
However, differences in height will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences 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).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed height difference, i.e., 5 µm to 10 µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Kwon/Jang.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed heights 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).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 2A) shows that each of the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) has a bottom surface. Furthermore, Kwon (see, e.g., par.0153/ll.1-5) appears to show that a thickness vertically between the top surface and the bottom surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads is close to 30µm. However, Kwon is silent explicitly regarding a thickness vertically between the top and bottom surfaces of each of the plurality of extended bond pads.
However, differences in thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences 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).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed thickness, i.e., close to 30µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Kwon/Jang. See also the comments stated in paragraphs 51-54 above with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows that each of the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) is connected with a corresponding one of a plurality of vias 115 of the substrate 102. Furthermore, Jang (see, e.g., fig. 6) also shows that each of the plurality of extended bond pads 130/140 is connected with a corresponding one of a plurality of vias 127 of the substrate 10.
Regarding claim 21, Jang (see, e.g., Jang: figs. 1-2 and 6 and pars.0052-0054 and 0056-0059) shows that the lower portion 140 of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 130/140 has a bottom surface, and wherein a width 130d_T of the top surface of the extended bond pads is 65 percent or less than a width 130d_B of the bottom surface. Furthermore, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 2A) shows that the lower portion (e.g., 117) of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) has a bottom surface, and wherein the top surface (e.g., top surface of 108) of each of the plurality of extended bond pads has a width that is less than a width of the bottom surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads.
However, and nevertheless, differences in width will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences 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). Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed width difference, i.e., 65 percent or less, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Kwon/Jang. See also the comments stated in paragraphs 51-54 above with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 22, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2, 2A, and 4) shows that a bottom surface (e.g., surface of 106 closest to 104) of the solder connection 106 is elevated above the top surface of the solder mask layer 118.
Regarding claim 24, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 2A) appears to show that the solder connection 106 encapsulates less than half of the upper portion (e.g., 108/121) of the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) and encapsulates greater than a quarter of the respective pillar 110/120 of the plurality of pillars. Kwon, however, fails to explicitly specify the numerical less than half and greater than a quarter encapsulation amounts.
However, differences in area amount or percentage will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences 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). Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed encapsulation area percentages, i.e., less than half and greater than a quarter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Kwon/Jang. See also the comments stated in paragraphs 51-54 above with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai in view of Nakamura (US 2010/0327435).
Regarding claim 23, Sakurai shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 20 and 26 above). Sakurai (see, e.g., fig. 6C) further shows that there is empty space disposed between the frontside surface of the semiconductor device 210/200 and the top surface 11a of the solder mask layer 11, wherein there is also empty space further disposed between the bottom surface of the solder connection 300 and the top surface of the solder mask layer. Sakurai further teaches that Sakurai desires mechanical and electrical connections between Sakurai’s semiconductor device and Sakurai’s substrate (see, e.g., fig. 6C and par.0067/ll.8-12). Sakurai, however, fails to specify that a non-conductive material filling is disposed in this empty space, including between the frontside surface of the semiconductor device and the top surface of the solder mask layer and further disposed between the bottom surface of the solder connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer.
Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Sakurai, teaches using a non-conductive material filling 32 disposed between a frontside surface of a semiconductor device 22 and the top surface of a solder mask layer 29b, wherein the non-conductive material filling is further disposed between the bottom surface of a solder connection 27 and the top surface of the solder mask layer (see, e.g., Nakamura: par.0045/ll.5-6). Nakamura teaches that the inclusion of such non-conductive material filling in such a structure facilitates both securing the semiconductor device to the substrate and forming electrical connections between the semiconductor device and the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to include the non-conductive material filling structure of Nakamura in the device of Sakurai, that is, to include a non-conductive material filling disposed between the frontside surface of the semiconductor device and the top surface of the solder mask layer, wherein the non-conductive material filling is further disposed between the bottom surface of the solder connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer, as taught by Nakamura, so as to facilitate securing Sakurai’s semiconductor device to Sakurai’s substrate whilst also facilitating forming electrical connections between Sakurai’s semiconductor device and substrate, as already taught to be desired by Sakurai.
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon/Jang in view of Hanna (US 2023/0411348).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon/Jang shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 29-48 above). Kwon further teaches that Kwon’s substrate may include other conductive and supportive elements not shown in Kwon’s device (see, e.g., par.0151/ll.10-11). Kwon, however, fails to specify that Kwon’s substrate is a printed circuit board. Hanna, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Kwon, teaches that suitable substrates may be formed of a variety of materials, wherein printed circuit boards comprise one of a plethora of valid substrates for use in semiconductor assemblies (see, e.g., Hanna: fig. 1 and par.0040/ll.5-7). Hanna further teaches that printed circuit board substrates may specifically allow for the establishment of desired circuit patterns able to facilitate routing electrical signals between components (see, e.g., Hanna: par.0116/ll.1-7).
Hanna is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a substrate being a printed circuit board would be equivalent to another suitable substrate structure, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor device assembly of Kwon/Jang. That is, the substrate structures of both Kwon and Hanna would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable structure capable of mechanically supporting both conductive and insulative architecture within a semiconductor device assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a printed circuit board substrate structure, as taught by Hanna, or another suitable substrate structure, as taught by Kwon, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable structure capable of mechanically supporting both conductive and insulative architecture within a semiconductor device assembly. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Hanna is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would find particular incentive to have a substrate be a printed circuit board, as taught by Hanna, so as to implement in Kwon’s device a known architecture that facilitates the routing of electrical signals between semiconductor device components through circuit patterns capable of being adjusted according to desired design and electrical requirements.
Regarding claim 15, Kwon (see, e.g., pars.0154 and 0168/ll.21-23) shows that the plurality of extended bond pads 123/121 (includes 108 and 117) comprise copper and that Kwon’s semiconductor device assembly comprises a solder mask layer 118. Kwon, however, fails to specify the material of this solder mask layer. Hanna, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Kwon, teaches polymer material to be one of a variety of numerous materials suitable for use in solder mask layer structures (see, e.g., par.0053).
Hanna is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a solder mask layer comprising polymer would be equivalent to a solder mask layer comprising another suitable material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of solder mask layer. That is, the solder mask layers of both Kwon and Hanna would yield the predictable result of providing suitable solder mask barrier structures capable of preventing solder overflow and undesired bridging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a solder mask layer comprising polymer, as taught by Hanna, or a solder mask layer comprising another suitable material, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents for their use as solder mask materials, and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both solder mask structures would yield the predictable result of providing suitable solder mask barrier structures capable of preventing solder overflow and undesired bridging. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 23, Kwon (see, e.g., figs. 2 and 4 and par.0150/ll.20-22) further shows an material filling 112 disposed between the frontside surface of the semiconductor device 104 and the top surface of the solder mask layer 118, wherein the material filling is further disposed between the bottom surface (e.g., surface of 106 closest to 104) of the solder connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer (see, e.g., fig. 4). Kwon further teaches that a great variety of material fillings may be used for Kwon’s material filling (see, e.g., fig. 4 and par.0150/ll.20-22). Kwon, however, fails to explicitly specify that the material filling is a non-conductive material filling.
Jang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that non-conductive materials are suitable materials for material fillings, wherein Jang further teaches that such non-conductive material fillings facilitate securing semiconductor devices onto substrates (see, e.g., par.0140/ll.1-5). Additionally, Hanna, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Kwon, teaches that the choice of material for material fillings, including non-conductive materials, may be based on material properties and processing conditions, as well as both design and processing considerations (see, e.g., Hanna: par.0052/ll.15-22).
Here, Kwon’s express teaching that Kwon’s device may employ a great variety of material fillings taken together with Hanna’s disclosure that the materials of material fillings may be desirably adjusted so as to account for design and processing conditions, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the material choice of Kwon’s material filling may be adjusted as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting materials to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as Hanna’s express teachings of optimizing design and processing conditions, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
Moreover, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to use a non-conductive material for the material filling of Kwon, as taught by Jang, so as to facilitate securing Kwon’s semiconductor device onto Kwon’s substrate.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone 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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights