Attorney’s Docket Number: 138789-5191-US
Filing Date: 5/5/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 7/4/2022 (KR 10-2022-0081758)
Inventor: Heo
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 4/10/2026.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Species Restriction
Applicant’s election of the species reading on the package 1000 with the cross-section reading on fig. 2, the package substrate 300 with the top view reading on fig. 1, the second region R2 reading on fig. 3, and the trenches t1/t2 reading on fig. 4, in the reply filed on 4/10/2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The applicant indicated that claims 1-20 read on the elected species. Claims 3, 4, 6 and 13 read on non-elected species of the invention. Accordingly, claims 3, 4, 6 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 first sub-solder ball recited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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.
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, 2, 5, 8-12, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2007/0152350) in view of Wu (US 6287950).
Regarding claim 18, Kim (see, e.g., figs. 1-5) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor package comprising:
a package substrate 40 including first and second surfaces opposite each other
at least one semiconductor chip 51
a solder resist 30 disposed on the second surface and including a first trench
a redistribution pattern (RDL) including first (RDLa) 25b,26 and second (RDLb) 29 sub-redistribution patterns
first (PD1) and second (PD2) sub-pads extending along a bottom surface of the first trench and being connected to RDLa and RDLb, respectively (see, e.g., ¶0034), and
first (SB1) 55b, 55c and second (SB2) 55a sub-solder balls connected to the first and second sub-pads, respectively
wherein:
the substrate includes four edge regions a and a central region excluding the edge regions
each of the edge regions a has a step shape
the chip 51 is mounted on the first surface of the central region of the substrate 40
the RDLa 25b,26 is disposed at the central region of the substrate
the RDLb 29a is disposed at the edge region of the substrate
the first trench exposes the RDL
the SB2 55a includes first and second portions, and the second portion is on the first portion
the first portion of the SB2 55a does not overlap the SB1 55b, 55cin a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction of the substrate 40, and
each of the PD1 and PD2 includes NiAu (see, e.g., ¶0034)
Kim, however, fails to show the RDLb 29a including a plurality of second trenches that do not expose the package substrate. Wu, in a similar package to Kim, teaches that said trenches would increase production yield (see, e.g., col.3/ll.50-57).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to include the second trenches of Wu in the RDLbs of Kim to increase production yield.
Regarding claim 19, Kim (see, e.g., fig. 3 and ¶0034) shows that the upper surface of the PD1 20 is flat.
Regarding claim 12, Kim (see, e.g., figs. 1-5) shows a semiconductor package comprising:
A package substrate 40 including an edge region a and a central region excluding the edge region
A semiconductor chip 51 mounted on the central region of the substrate
A RDLa 25b, 26 at the central region of the substrate
A RDLb 29 at the edge region of the substrate
A PD1 on a second surface of the substrate and connected to the RDLa (see, e.g., ¶0034)
A PD2 on the second surface of the substrate and connected to the RDLb (see, e.g., ¶0034)
A SB1 55b,55c connected to the PD1
A SB2 55a connected to the PD2
wherein:
at least a part of the SB2 55a overlaps the RDLb 29a in a direction that is perpendicular to the thickness direction of the substrate 40, and
an upper surface of the PD1 is flat.
Kim, however, fails to show the RDLb 29a including a trench, wherein the second pad extends along a sidewall and bottom of the trench, and part of the SB2 55a is on the trench. Wu, on the other hand, teaches that said trench increases production yield. See, e.g., Wu: figs. 2E, 3 and col.3/ll.48-57.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a PHOSITA to include the trench of Wu in the RDLb of Kim to increase production yield.
Regarding claim 14, Kim (see, e.g., ¶0034) shows that the PD1 and the PD2 include NiAu.
Regarding claim 15, Wu (see, e.g., figs. 2F-2G) shows that the trench has at least one of circular, square, rectangular, or fan shapes.
Regarding claim 17, Kim (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the edge region a has a step shape.
Regarding claim 1, Kim (see, e.g., figs. 1-5) shows a semiconductor package comprising:
A package substrate 40 including a first region, a second region a excluding the first region, a first surface, and a second surface opposite the first surface
A semiconductor chip 51 mounted on a first surface of the substrate
A pad (PD) including a PD1 and a PD2 disposed on the second surface of the first and second regions, respectively (see, e.g., ¶0034)
A solder ball on the second surface and including a SB1 55b,55c and a SB2 55a connected to the PD1 and PD2, respectively
wherein the SB2 55a includes the first and second portions, and the second portion is on the first portion.
Kim, however, fails to show the PD2 including a second ball recess, wherein the first portion of the SB2 55a is disposed in the recess. Wu (see, e.g., fig. 2E and col.3/ll.50-57), on the other hand, teaches that said recess increases production yield.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a PHOSITA to include the recess of Wu in the PD2 of Kim to increase production yield.
Regarding claim 2, Kim (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the second region a is adjacent to an edge area of the substrate 40 and has a step shape in a plan view.
Regarding claim 5, Kim (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 5) shows the package further comprising a RDL 20 connected to PD2 wherein the first portion of the SB2 55a overlaps the RDL 29a; Wu (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows that the second portion of the SB2 250 is not in the RDL 210.
Regarding claim 8, Kim (see, e.g., fig. 3) shows that an upper surface of the PD1 20 is flat.
Regarding claim 9, Kim (see, e.g., ¶0034) shows that the pad includes NiAu.
Regarding claim 10, Kim (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows that the SB1 55b, 55c does not overlap the first portion of the SB2 55a in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction of the substrate 40.
Regarding claim 11, Kim (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows that the chip 51 does not overlap the second region a in the thickness direction of the substrate 40.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Wu in view of Nagasaki (US 2005/0194684).
Regarding claim 7, Kim (see, e.g., ¶0034) fails to show that the thickness of the PD2 is constant. Nagasaki (see, e.g., ¶0052-0053), however, teaches that a PD2 with constant thickness suppresses defects in the package.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a PHOSITA to have the PD2 of Kim with a uniform thickness, as suggested by Nagasaki, to suppress defects in the package.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Wu in view of Langley (US 5686762).
Regarding claim 20, Wu teaches second trenches 215 in a first trench and expressly shows that different trench patterns may be used (see, e.g., figs. 2E-2G and col. 3/ll.34-47). Langley (see, e.g., fig. 3) teaches an alternative trench pattern in which the second trenches 22 are not formed in the central region of the first trench 16.
It would have been obvious to modify Wu’s second trenches to follow Langley’s arrangement because the modification is merely the use of a known alternative trench configuration for the same bonding-pad purpose, i.e., improving bonding characteristics through patterned trenches.
The claimed exclusion of the second trenches from the central region, therefore, amounts to an obvious variation in the shape/configuration of the trench pattern, absent persuasive evidence of a different function or unexpected result. See MPEP §§ 2143 and 2144; see also In re Dailey (changes in configuration or form held obvious where the prior art performed the same function) and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (predictable variations of known elements are likely obvious).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@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 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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights