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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/25/2026 has been entered.
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 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 & 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US PUB. 2021/0242101) in view of Tsai et al. (US Pub. 2021/0202455) and Lee et al. (US PUB. 2014/0041911).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches a semiconductor device assembly, comprising:
a substrate 102 having a plurality of contact pads 104 disposed at a coupling surface (e.g. top surface, see Fig. 2A) ;
a semiconductor die 110 coupled with the substrate 102 at the plurality of contact pads 104 (Fig. 2A);
an liquid-repelling material D (Da-Db) disposed at the coupling surface and surrounding a periphery of the semiconductor die 110 (Para [0046]), the liquid-repelling material resistant to wetting by an underfill material 120 (Fig. 2A, KIM teaches several material including photoresist resin and silica that have known liquid repellant characteristics, see Para [0045]); and
the underfill material 120 disposed at least between the semiconductor die 110 and the substrate 102, the underfill material 120 including a fillet between the semiconductor die 110 and the liquid-repelling material (Da & Db, see Fig. 1-2A).
Kim is silent on (i) wherein the fillet is in contact with an entire sidewall of the semiconductor die; and (ii) wherein the liquid-repelling material has a wetting contact angle of at least 90 degrees.
Regarding (i), Tsai teaches in Fig. 2F and Para [0042] an underfill material comprising a fillet, wherein the fillet is in contact with an entire sidewall of a semiconductor die. This has the advantage of reinforcing solder joints, redistributing stress from thermal expansion mismatches and improving reliability against shock, vibration and temperature cycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of KIM with the underfill structure, as taught by Tsai, so as to obtain an improved semiconductor device.
Regarding (ii), Lee teaches in Fig. 1, wherein the liquid-repelling material has a wetting contact angle of at least 90 degrees (similar to applicant’s liquid-repelling material, Lee’s liquid repelling material comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), which has the characteristics of having a wetting contact angle of at least 90 degrees, see Para [0018]). This has the advantages of efficiently limiting the movement of underfill material 210. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of KIM and Tsai with the PFTE material having said wetting contact angle, as taught by Lee, so as to efficiently contain the movement of the underfill material.
Furthermore, KIM discloses the claimed invention except that the liquid-repelling material is square and/or rectangular shape instead of annulus; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ any shape including annulus since the examiner takes Office Notice of the equivalence of square, rectangular and annulus shapes for their use in the context of creating an underfill dam for a semiconductor device, and the selection of any of these known equivalents would have been obvious and within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee teaches the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, further comprising: an additional semiconductor die 130 mounted on the semiconductor die 110; and a wire bond pad 108 disposed at the coupling surface and configured to couple the additional semiconductor die 130 with the substrate 102 (Fig. 2A), wherein the annulus of liquid-repelling material D (Da-Db) separates the underfill material 120 from the wire bond pad 108 (see Fig. 1-12).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee teaches the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, wherein the annulus of liquid-repelling material forms a rectangular annulus surrounding the periphery of the semiconductor die (Fig. 1-12, note the liquid-repelling material D (Da-Db) having different shapes). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ any shape including rectangular since the examiner takes Office Notice of the equivalence of square, rectangular and annulus shapes for their use in the context of creating an underfill dam for a semiconductor device, and the selection of any of these known equivalents would have been obvious and within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee teaches the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, wherein: a first portion of the annulus of liquid-repelling material adjacent to a first side of the semiconductor die is distanced from the semiconductor die by a first distance W2; and a second portion of the annulus of liquid-repelling material adjacent to a second side of the semiconductor die that is opposite the first side is distanced from the semiconductor die by a second distance W1 that is different than the first distance (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee teaches the semiconductor device assembly of claim 5, wherein the first side of the semiconductor die 110 corresponds to a side of the semiconductor die 110 at which the underfill material is dispensed (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee teaches the semiconductor device assembly of claim 6, wherein the first distance W2 is greater than the second distance W1 (Fig. 2A and respective text).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee does not teach the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the annulus of liquid-repelling material is a height less than 10 microns from the coupling surface of the substrate (Kim teaches a height of 18 um or less). Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee teaches the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, wherein the annulus of liquid-repelling material D is substantially coplanar with the coupling surface of the substrate 102 (Para [0046]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee does not teach the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, wherein the annulus of liquid-repelling material has a width of at least 200 microns. Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee does not teach the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, wherein the underfill material 120 extends no more than 500 microns from the periphery of the semiconductor die. Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of KIM, Tsai and Lee teaches the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, wherein the liquid- repelling material comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Lee’s Para [0018]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM, Tsai and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LIN et al. (US PUB. 2018/0342466).
Regarding claim 3, while KIM teaches the semiconductor device assembly of claim 1, further comprising: an additional semiconductor die 130 mounted on the semiconductor die 110, KIM does not teach a spacer disposed at the coupling surface; and wherein the annulus of liquid-repelling material separates the underfill material from the spacer. However, Lin teaches a spacer 28 disposed at a coupling surface (top surface of substrate 10); and wherein an annulus of liquid-repelling material 30 separates an underfill material 26 from the spacer 28 (Fig. 3B and Fig. 7B). This has the advantages of incorporating additional components in the semiconductor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of KIM with the spacer component, as taught by LIN, so as to obtain a semiconductor device with additional components.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US PUB. 2021/0242101) in view of LIN et al. (US PUB. 2018/0342466) and IWAFUCHI et al (US Pub. 2023/0343803).
Regarding claim 17, KIM teaches a substrate 102, comprising:
an upper surface having:
a plurality of contact pads 104 (Fig. 2A);
a wire bond pad 108 (Fig. 2A); and
a liquid-repelling material D (Da-Db) surrounding the plurality of contact pads 104 and separating the plurality of contact pads from the wire bond pad, the liquid-repelling material D resistant to wetting by an underfill material 120 (Fig. 2A, KIM teaches several material including photoresist resin and silica that have liquid repellant characteristics, see Para [0045]).
KIM does not teach (i) a spacer; and wherein the liquid-repelling material separates the plurality of contact pads and the spacer; (ii) that the liquid-repelling material is of annulus shape; and (iii) wherein a top surface of the annulus of liquid-repelling material is coplanar with the upper surface of the wire bond pad.
Lin teaches (i) a spacer 28 disposed at a coupling surface (top surface of substrate 10); and wherein an annulus of liquid-repelling material 30 separates an underfill material 26 from the spacer 28 (Fig. 3B and Fig. 7B). This has the advantages of incorporating additional components in the semiconductor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of KIM with the spacer component, as taught by Lin, so as to obtain a semiconductor device with additional components.
Regarding (ii), though KIM’s liquid repelling material is of square/rectangular shape and Lin’s liquid-repelling material 30 is of square/rectangular and oval shapes; however, they are silent on that the liquid-repelling material being of annulus shape. Notwithstanding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ any shape including annulus since the examiner takes Office Notice of the equivalence of square, rectangular, oval and annulus shapes for their use in the context of creating an underfill dam for a semiconductor device, and the selection of any of these known equivalents would have been obvious and within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding (iii), the combination of the prior art is silent on wherein a top surface of the annulus of liquid-repelling material is coplanar with the upper surface of the wire bond pad. However, IWAFUCHI teaches in Fig. 5, wherein a top surface of an annulus of liquid-repelling material 23D is coplanar with the upper surface of a bond pad 21. This provides the advantages of containing the underfill material while keeping the surface smooth/coplanar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of KIM & Lin with the coplanar liquid-repelling material and pad, as taught by IWAFUCHI, so as to obtain a smooth and coplanar surface while efficiently containing the underfill material.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of KIM, Lin and IWAFUCHI is silent on the substrate of claim 17, wherein the annulus of liquid-repelling material has a thickness less than 10 microns (Kim teaches a thickness of about 50 um in para [0023]) and Lin teaches a thickness of 40 um in para [0020]). Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of KIM, Lin and IWAFUCHI is silent the substrate of claim 17, wherein the liquid-repelling material has a width of at least 200 microns. Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM, Lin and IWAFUCHI as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Lee et al.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of KIM and Lin does not teach the semiconductor device assembly of claim 17, wherein the liquid- repelling material comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). However, Lee teaches in Fig. 1 a liquid repelling material that comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (see Para [0018]). This has the advantages of limiting the movement of underfill material 210. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of KIM with the PFTE material, as taught by Lee, so as to contain the movement of the underfill material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17 and their respective dependent claims have been considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. The Examiner points out that the combination of prior art teaches each and every claim limitation as addressed above. With respect to claim 1, the Lee reference uses the same material as applicant in their liquid-repelling material and therefore, when incorporated in Kim’s device, it will have the characteristic of wetting angle of at least 90 degrees. With respect to claim 17, the IWFUCHI reference teaches wherein a top surface of an annulus of liquid-repelling material 23D is coplanar with the upper surface of a bond pad 21 (see rejection above). As such, the prior art teaches each and every feature of the claims as addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights