DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With regards to claim 1, particularly the newly added claim amendment stating “wherein the solder layer of the copper-cored solder ball has different thicknesses directly above and directly below the copper core”, it does not seem immediately obvious within the applicant’s figures solely, as noted in the remarks dated 10/28/2025, that the applicant is in possession of the claimed thickness difference of 604 above and 602 below. Furthermore, there is no relevant discussion in the specification or notation in the drawings noting the thickness difference, where similar notations for pitch (P) and width (W) have been shown.
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 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khim et al. US 2021/02966249 A1 in view of Cho US 2017/0221866 A1.
Regarding claim 1-7 and 9-11, Khim discloses:
A semiconductor package (Fig. 1), comprising:
a bottom substrate (11) and a top substrate (19) space apart from the bottom substrate such that the bottom substrate and the top substrate define a gap therebetween;
a logic die (14) mounted on a top surface of the bottom substrate;
a plurality of copper cored solder balls (18; para 0043) disposed between the bottom substrate and the top substrate around the logic die to electrically connect the bottom substrate with the top substrate, wherein each of the plurality of copper cored solder balls (Fig. 2D: para 0043; 18a/18b) comprises a copper core (18a) coated with a solder layer (18b); and
a sealing resin (15; para 0048) filling in the gap between the bottom substrate and the top substrate and sealing the logic die and the plurality of copper cored solder balls in the gap.
Khim does not disclose:
wherein the solder layer of the copper-cored solder ball has different thicknesses directly above and directly below the copper core.
Cho discloses a publication from a similar field of endeavor in which:
wherein the solder layer of the copper-cored solder ball (132 and 300) has different thicknesses directly above and directly below the copper core (Figs. 5C and 6; 300 shown thicker above 132 than below 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the thickness of the similar copper-cored solder ball of Khim as shown by Cho to alleviate potential shorting between connections particularly in applications requiring a reduction in pitch between solder connections. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to the claimed thickness of the logic die of Khim namely “wherein the logic die has a thickness of 125-350 micrometers;” to accommodate the die within the desired gap region between the two substrates since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
(claim 2) flip-chip (Fig. 1, 14).
(claim 3) active front side (bottom); passive rear side (top); a plurality of input/output pads (portion of 141 connected to 14).
(claim 4) a plurality of conductive elements (141).
(claim 5) Fig. 1.
(claim 6) package substrates (11 and 19).
(claim 7) gap height range using same reasoning as in claim 1 in regards to the logic die thickness.
(claim 9) ball pitch range using same reasoning as in claim 1 in regards to the logic die thickness.
(claim 10) a copper core coated with a solder layer (para 0043).
(claim 11) external connection terminals (12) (Fig. 1).
Claims 8, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khim/Cho, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yim et al. US 2021/0257305 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Khim does not disclose:
wherein an aspect ratio of the plurality of copper cored solder balls ranges between 1.1-2.0.
Yim discloses a publication from a similar field of endeavor in which:
wherein an aspect ratio of the plurality of copper cored solder balls ranges between 1.1-2.0 (Fig. 1; 162, para 0035 and 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the copper cored solder balls of Khim to be within the ratio of Yim’s similar connection structures to provide spacing for chip placement within the package. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to determine the claimed aspect ratio range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Khim does not disclose:
(claim 12) a memory package mounted on the semiconductor package; and (claim 13) wherein the memory package comprises a LPDDR DRAM package.
Yim discloses a publication from a similar field of endeavor in which:
(claim 12) a memory package (400 para 0145) mounted on the semiconductor package; and (claim 13) wherein the memory package comprises a LPDDR DRAM package (para 0145) (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the memory package as noted by Yim above the similar package structure of Khim to allow further functionality to the package particularly effective for mobile applications requiring smaller scale packaging solutions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERROL V FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)270-7433. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571) 270-3042. 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.
/ERROL V FERNANDES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893