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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on October 03rd, 2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention of Group II, claims 6-10 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-5 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 24th, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/15/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The terms “the plurality of first solder balls respectively correspond to a plurality of predetermined vias” and “the first ball pitch is determined according to a minimum trace width that is relative to a via size of the plurality of predetermined vias” in claims 1-2 are the relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “predetermined” and “a minimum” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is the predetermined vias and a minimum trace? The terms: “predetermined vias” and “a minimum trace” are broad terms and rendering claim 1 unclear because the skilled person is uncertain about is actual meaning (which renders the claim indefinite).
Claims 3-5 are also rejected as being dependent on the rejected claims 1.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2007/0080456, hereinafter as Chang ‘456) in view of Zhao (US 2001/0015497, hereinafter as Zhao ‘497).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang ‘456 teaches a ball grid array, formed on a printed circuit board (420; [0033]), comprising:
an inner row region (Fig. 4, (Z3); [0033]) including a plurality of first solder balls (405; [0028] and [0033]) that are arranged by a first ball pitch (S3; [0034]), and an outer row region (Fig. 4, (Z2); [0033]) being disposed to surround the inner row region, wherein the outer row region includes a plurality of second solder balls that are arranged by a second ball pitch (S2), and wherein the second ball pitch (S2) is smaller than the first ball pitch (S3) (see para. [0034]).
Chang ‘456 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the plurality of first solder balls respectively correspond to a plurality of predetermined vias”.
Zhao ‘497 teaches the plurality of first solder balls (Fig. 1, (40); [0026]) respectively correspond to a plurality of predetermined vias (Fig. 1, (32); [0024]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chang ‘456 by having the plurality of first solder balls respectively correspond to a plurality of predetermined vias for the purpose of providing appropriate electrical connections intermediate integrated circuitry and external circuitry (see para. [0024]) as suggested by Zhao ‘497.
Chang ‘456 and Zhao ‘497 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first ball pitch is determined according to a minimum trace width that is relative to a via size of the plurality of predetermined vias”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first ball pitch is determined according to a minimum trace width that is relative to a via size of the plurality of predetermined vias on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the first ball pitch is determined according to a minimum trace width that is relative to a via size of the plurality of predetermined vias when this improves the performance of the ball-grid array integrated circuit package.
PNG
media_image2.png
356
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4a (Chang ‘456)
Regarding Claim 2, Chang ‘456 teaches the minimum trace width is a minimum distance between two adjacent ones of the plurality of first solder balls (S3).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhao ‘497 teaches the first ball pitch is 1 mm or less (see para. [0005]) which overlaps the claim range of 0.8 mm or 0.75 mm.
Regarding Claim 4, Chang ‘456 teaches the second ball pitch (S2) is smaller than the first ball pitch (S3) (see para. [0034]).
Zhao ‘497 teaches the ball pitch is 1 mm or less (see para. [0005]) which overlaps the claim range of 0.65 mm.
Regarding Claim 5, Chang ‘456 teaches the inner row region (Z3) is one region of the ball grid array (405) adjacent to a center of the printed circuit board (420; [0033]), and the outer row region is another region of the ball grid array (405) adjacent to edges of the printed circuit board (420; [0033]).
Zhao ‘497 teaches a printed circuit board (PCB) (see para. [0021]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Shi et al. (US 2020/0343210 A1)
Hirose et al. (US 2013/0147042 A1)
Zhong (US 2009/0212443 A1)
Hirai (US 2009/0067135 A1)
Masumoto et al. (US 2005/0082649 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893