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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Missing claim 21, Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 14, & 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pai et al. (US 20240128420).
Regarding claim 1, Pai discloses that a semiconductor device, comprising:
a semiconductor stack comprising;
a first semiconductor layer 230;
a second semiconductor layer 210 on the first semiconductor layer 230 and comprising a top surface; and
a first recess 242 penetrating the second semiconductor layer 210 (Fig. 1);
a protective layer 250 on the semiconductor stack and having an uppermost surface;
a first electrode 242 on the first semiconductor layer 230, wherein the first electrode comprising a first upper surface; and
a first conductive bump 242 comprising a first portion filling into the first recess 242 to connect to [[on]] the first electrode 242 and a second portion on the top surface of the second semiconductor layer (Fig. 1);
wherein the first conductive bump comprises having a first convex outermost surface with an arc shape (Fig. 1-4, para, 0021, note: a side portion of solder pattern SP is has an arc shape).
Reclaim 2, Pai discloses that a plurality of particles discretely distributed within the first conductive bump SP (Fig. 1).
Reclaim 4, Pai discloses that the first electrode 242 has a concave second recess, and the first conductive bump SP fills the concave second recess (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 5, Pai discloses that the first conductive bump SP is substantially a rectangle in a top view (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 6, Pai discloses that, in a cross-sectional view of the first conductive bump, the first convex outermost surface comprises a first curve with a first endpoint in contact with the first upper surface of the first electrode, and a first tangent line of the first curve at the first endpoint form an angle e1 in a range of 70° and 90° with respect to the first upper surface of the first electrode (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 7, Pai discloses that a second electrode 241 having a second upper surface on the semiconductor stack, and a second conductive bump on the second electrode, wherein in the cross-sectional view, the second conductive bump SP-B has a second convex outermost surface comprising a second curve with a second endpoint in contact with the second upper surface of the second electrode, and a second tangent line of the second curve at the second endpoint form an angle θ2 smaller than e1 with respect to the second upper surface of the second electrode (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 14, Pai discloses that a cross-sectional shape of the first conductive bump in a direction parallel to a side length of the first electrode is not equal to a cross-sectional shape of the conductive bump in a direction of a diagonal line of the first electrode (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 23, Pai discloses that the first electrode 242 is disposed on the top surface of the second semiconductor layer (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 24, Pai discloses that the semiconductor stack comprises an active layer 220 between a first semiconductor layer 130 and a second semiconductor layer 210, and the first recess penetrates the active layer (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 25, Pai discloses that the first semiconductor layer comprises a rough surface 230s opposite to the first conductive bump (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 26, Pai disclose that the convex outermost surface of the first conductive bump comprises a roughness less than that of the roughness surface of the first semiconductor layer 230s (Fig. 1-4).
Reclaim 27, Pai discloses that the second portion of the first conductive bump comprises a variable thickness (Fig. 1-4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 12, 20, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pai et al. (US 20240128420) in view of Choi et al. (US 20140332839).
Reclaim 3, Pai fails to specify that a material of the plurality of particles is the same as a material of the first electrode, and is different from a material of the first conductive bump.
However, Choi suggests that a material of the plurality of particles is the same as a material of the first electrode, and is different from a material of the first conductive bump (para. 0034 & 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Pai with a material of the plurality of particles is the same as a material of the first electrode, and is different from a material of the first conductive bump as taught by Choi in order to enhance verify of materials and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 12, Pai & Choi disclose that the first electrode and the first conductive bump are formed of comprise different materials (para. 0065, can be different material).
Reclaim 20, Pai discloses that the first conductive bump comprises a top, a maximum width, and a thickness, wherein the thickness is defined from the top to the uppermost surface of the protective layer corresponding to the first recess.
Pai & Choi fails to specify that a ratio of the thickness to the maximum width is from 0.1 to 0.4.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain ratio of the thickness to the maximum width, because it would have been to obtain a certain ratio of the thickness to the maximum width to achieve proper electrical contact.
Reclaim 22, Pai & Choi discloses that the first electrode is devoid of gold (para. 0065, AU).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pai et al. (US 20240128420) in view of Bhat et al. (US 20150200335).
Reclaim 8, Pai fails to teach that a glue material on the protective layer and separated from the first conductive bump.
However, Bhat suggests that a glue material 330 on the protective layer and separated from the first conductive bump 352 (Fig. 3C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Pai with a glue material on the protective layer and separated from the first conductive bump as taught by Bhat in order to enhance electrical insulate those portions of the circuit (para. 0048) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 9, Pai & Bhat disclose that a height of the glue material is smaller than a height of the first conductive bump (Fig. 3C).
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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899