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 08/25/2025.
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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 08/25/2025 in reply to the previous Office action mailed on 06/11/2025 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 Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-16 and 21-24, with claims 8-14 and 16 remaining withdrawn from consideration.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.
“An underfill material disposed between the backside of the semiconductor device and the top surface of the solder mask layer, wherein the underfill material is disposed between the bottom surface of the solder connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer” in the device of claims 1 and 22, as recited in claim 23
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 claim 23, reciting the orientation of an underfill material wherein “an underfill material [is] disposed between the backside of the semiconductor device and the top surface of the solder mask layer, wherein the underfill material is disposed between the bottom surface of the solder connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer”.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23 has been added to recite at least the new limitation of “an underfill material disposed between the backside surface of the semiconductor device and the top surface of the solder mask layer, wherein the underfill material is disposed between the bottom surface of the solder connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer”.
Applicant alleges that “Support of the claims added in this Paper can similarly be found throughout the Specification as filed, the Drawings as filed, and the Claims as filed” (see, e.g., Remarks, page 7). However, a review of the written description fails to find any support for the claimed orientation for an underfill material as recited, as the specification as originally filed provides no mention of how an underfill material should be distributed in the device of the elected species reading on figure 2B, including that the underfill material is disposed between the bottom surface of the solder connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer. Similarly, a review of the Drawings fails to identify any underfill material or underfill material orientation, including an orientation such that an underfill material is disposed between the bottom surface of the solder connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer. Accordingly, the newly amended limitations are directed to New Matter.
The applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim, 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.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a width of the top surface”. Two distinct “top surfaces” are recited in preceding claim 1, a “top surface” of an upper portion of each of a plurality of extended bond pads and a “top surface” of a solder mask layer. Furthermore, the claim could be understood to read as a “top surface” of the lower portion of each of the plurality of extended bond pads. As such, this limitation in the claim is indefinite, as it is unclear which exact “top surface” the applicant is explicitly referring to.
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 1-7, 15, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2009/0294962) in view of Hanna (US 2023/0411348) and Jang (US 2022/0199511).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu (see, e.g., figs. 2E’’ and 4 and par.0057/ll.8) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor device assembly comprising:
a semiconductor device 25a having a plurality of connections 253a disposed on a backside surface of the semiconductor device; and
a substrate (area including 25 and below)
wherein:
the substrate (area including 25 and below) includes a solder mask layer 21a disposed on a frontside of the substrate;
the substrate includes a plurality of extended bond pads 24a/25 disposed on the frontside surface of the substrate and surrounded by the solder mask layer;
the plurality of extended bond pads each have a lower portion in parallel to the solder mask layer, wherein a vertical cross-section of the lower portion has a rectangular shape;
the plurality of extended bond pads each have an upper portion having a top surface higher than a top surface of the solder mask layer, wherein a vertical cross-section of the upper portion has a shape; and
the semiconductor device 25a is directly attached to the substrate by bonding each of the plurality of connections 253a of the semiconductor device to the top surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads with a solder connection 254
Although Hsu shows a plurality of connections 253a disposed on a backside surface of semiconductor device 25a, and further shows that these connections bond to the plurality of extended bond pads 24a/25 through a solder connection 254, Hsu fails to specify that the connections may be pillars. Hanna, in a similar device to Hsu, teaches that using pillars 114 as connections, shown to be disposed on the backside of a semiconductor device and attached to a solder connection 762, can improve the power delivery and signal connection of a device assembly (see, e.g., Hanna: fig. 1 and par.0022/ll.1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pillars taught by Hanna as the connections of Hsu, so as to improve the power delivery and signal connection of Hsu’s device assembly.
Furthermore, although Hsu teaches that Hsu’s extended bond pads have an upper portion, Hsu fails to teach that a vertical cross-section of the upper portion has a trapezoidal shape. Jang, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Hsu, 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 Hsu’s extended bond pads comprise trapezoidal shapes, as taught by Jang, so as to ensure the ease of alignment between Hsu’s extended bond pads and semiconductor die, the electrical connection between Hsu’s conductive solder connections and extended bond pads, and the bonding reliability between Hsu’s conductive solder connections and extended bond pads.
Nevertheless, Hsu/Hanna shows all aspects of the instant invention (see, e.g., paragraphs 18-20 above), except for the trapezoid-shaped vertical cross-sections of the upper portions of the extended bond pads. Hsu/Hanna shows instead (see, e.g., Hsu: figs. 2E, 2E’’, and 4) that the upper portions of the extended bond pads can have a rectangular 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, 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 portion vertical cross-section shape disclosed by Hsu/Hanna 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 portion vertical cross-section shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous upper 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 portion vertical cross-section shape 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, Hsu (see, e.g., fig. 4) shows that the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 24a/25 is substantially planar and at least partially extending above the top surface of the solder mask layer 21a.
Regarding claim 3, Hsu (see, e.g., fig. 4 and par.0057/ll.8) shows that the top surface of each of the plurality of extended bond pads 24a/25 is at least partially covered by a corresponding one of a plurality of solder connections 254 disposed between the plurality of pillars and the plurality of extended bond pads.
Regarding claim 4, Hsu (see, e.g., fig. 4) teaches that the top surface of the plurality of extended bond pads 24a/25 is higher than that of the solder mask layer 21a. However, Hsu is silent with respect to the 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 Hsu.
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, Hsu (see, e.g., fig. 4) shows that each of the plurality of extended bond pads 24a/25 has a bottom surface. However, Hsu is silent 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 (see next paragraph below) of the claimed thickness, i.e., close to 30 µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hsu. See also the comments stated in paragraphs 28-31 above with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 6, Jang (see, e.g., fig. 6) 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 7, Hanna (see, e.g., fig. 1 and par.0040/ll.5-7) teaches that the substrate 122 may be a printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 15, Hsu (see, e.g., fig. 4 and par.0037) teaches that the plurality of extended bond pads 24a/25 comprise copper. Furthermore, Hanna (see, e.g., Hanna: par.0053/ll.1-5) teaches polymer material to be suitable material for solder mask layers.
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.
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 of less, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hsu. See also the comments stated in paragraphs 28-31 above with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 22, Hsu (see, e.g., fig. 4) shows that a bottom surface of the solder connection 254 is elevated above the top surface of the solder mask layer.
Regarding claim 24, Hsu (see, e.g., fig. 4) shows that the solder connection 254 partially encapsulates the upper portion of the corresponding one of the plurality of extended bond pads 24a/25.
Claim 23 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu/Hanna/Jang in view of Nakamura (US 2010/0327435).
Regarding claim 23, Hsu/Hanna/Jang shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 18-25 and 40 above). Furthermore, Hsu (see, e.g., figs. 2E’’ and 4) shows that Hsu’s semiconductor device assembly further comprises an underfill material 28 disposed between the backside surface of Hsu’s semiconductor device 25a and the top surface of Hsu’s solder mask layer 21a. However, although Hsu additionally teaches that the underfill material is disposed between Hsu’s solder connection 254 and the top surface of the solder mask layer, Hsu fails to explicitly specify that the underfill material is disposed between the bottom surface of the connection and the top surface of the solder mask layer. Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Hsu, shows an underfill material 32 disposed between the bottom surface of a connection 27 and a solder mask layer 29 (see, e.g., Nakamura: fig. 2).
Nakamura is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an underfill material disposed between the bottom surface of a connection and the top surface of a solder mask layer would be equivalent to an underfill material only disposed between a connection and the top surface of a solder mask layer, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the integrated circuit structure of Hsu. That is, the underfill material orientations of both Hsu and Nakamura would yield the predictable result of providing an encapsulation reinforcing and isolating a conductive connection structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either an underfill material disposed between the bottom surface of a connection and the top surface of a solder mask layer, as taught by Nakamura, or an underfill material only disposed between a connection and the top surface of a solder mask layer, as taught by Hsu, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing an encapsulation reinforcing and isolating a conductive connection structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings, specification, and claims have overcome the objections to the drawings and claim objections made in the Office action mailed on 06/11/2025. Accordingly, the objections to the drawings and claim objections made in the Office action mailed on 06/11/2025 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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