DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s election filed on 12/29/2025.
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 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Amendment Status
The Applicant’s response on 12/29/2025 in reply to the restriction mailed on 10/29/2025 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-20.
Election/Restriction
The Applicant’s response on 12/29/2025 in reply to the restriction/election requirements mailed on 10/29/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 12 corresponding to fig. 11, drawn to claims 1-20, is acknowledged. Examiner agrees.
The traversals of the Species restriction respectively are on the grounds that “searching for the embodiment of FIG. 11 would encompass the search for the embodiment of FIG. 10A” (see, e.g., Remarks, Paragraph 2). This is found persuasive. The restriction requirement for Species 10 (corresponding to fig. 10A) is withdrawn. However, Species 1-9 and 11-15 remain patentably distinct species, as argued in the restriction requirements mailed on 10/29/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Specification Objection
The specification has been checked to the extend necessary to determine the presence of possible minor errors. However, the Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsiao (US 2017/0005051).
Regarding claim 11, Hsiao shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) all aspects of the instant invention including semiconductor package 500, comprising:
A first substrate 10
A first bonding pad 12 on the first substrate 10
A solder ball 22e on the first bonding pad 12
A blocking layer 24 on the solder ball 22e and having a first hole
wherein:
the first hole extends from an outer surface of the blocking layer 24 to an inner surface of the blocking layer 24
Regarding claim 12, Hsiao shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) shows that:
The blocking layer 24 includes a first region and a second region
The first region is apart from the first substrate 10
The second region is between the first substrate 10 and the first region
The first hole is in the first region
Regarding claim 14, Hsiao shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: figs. 3B, 3C, and 4E) shows that the first hole has one of a circular shape, an elliptical shape, a quadrangular shape, and a hexagonal shape.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2017/0005051).
Regarding claim 13, Hsiao shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) most aspects of the instant invention including semiconductor package 500, comprising a first hole and the solder ball 22e. Hsiao shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) that the area of the first hole is about 30% to about 70% of an area of the solder ball (see, e.g., Hsiao: par. [0032]).
However, the differences in the area percentages will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the mentioned area percentages, and Hsiao has identified such area percentages as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Hsiao: par. [0032]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these diameter values in the device of Hsiao.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed percentage values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao in view of Son (US 2021/0375811).
Regarding claim 17, Hsiao shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E):
A second substrate 100 separated from the first substrate 10 by the solder ball 22e therebetween
A second bonding pad 104 on the second substrate 100
Solder layer 106 between the second bonding pad 104 and the first bonding pad 12
wherein:
The solder layer 106 is combined with the solder ball 22e
The solder ball 22e has a higher meting point than the solder layer 106 (see, e.g., Hsiao: par. [0016] and [0021]; for example, element 22e is made of SnZn, and the element 106 is made of SnBi)
However, Hsiao fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show that the solder layer 106 is a solder paste. Hsiao shows that the solder layer 106 is a eutectic solder material including alloys of tin, lead, silver, copper, nickel, bismuth, or combinations thereof. Son, in a similar device o Hsiao, shows (see, e.g., Son: fig. 3) that the solder layer 120A is a solder paste (see, e.g., Son: par. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the solder paste of Son or the eutectic solder layer of Hsiao because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as solder layers in semiconductor device packages, as taught by Son and Hsiao, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Hsiao in view of Son shows (see, e.g., Son: fig. 3) that a distance between the first bonding pad 212 and the solder paste 120A is about 10% to about 30% of the distance between the first bonding pad 212 and the second bonding pad 132.
However, the differences in the distance percentages will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned distance percentages, and Son has identified such distance percentages as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Son: par. [0124]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these diameter values in the device of Hsiao in view of Son.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2017/0005051) in view of Chen (US 2022/0216071).
Regarding claim 1, Hsiao shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) most aspects of the instant invention including semiconductor package 500, comprising:
A first substrate 10
A first bonding pad 12
A solder ball 22e on the first bonding pad 12
A blocking layer 24 on the solder ball 22e
Hsiao, however, fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show that a thickness of the blocking layer 24 varies in a direction away from the first substrate 10. Chen, in a similar device to Hsiao, shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 6B) that a thickness of the blocking layer 122’ varies in a direction from the first substrate 118 (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0034]). Chen further shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 6B) that the blocking layer 122’ is reformed on the redistribution structure 100, and solder bumps 220’ are formed on the interconnect structure with bond pads (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0031]), thus, the blocking layer 122’ on the solder ball 220’ is part of the hybrid structure that starts to melt and collapse at a lower temperature than the SAC balls and forms the interconnection between the bond pads.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a blocking layer of Chen with a thickness that varies in a direction from the first substrate in the device of Hsiao, in order to form the interconnection between the bond pads.
Hsiao fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show that a thickness of the blocking layer 24 varies in a direction away from the first substrate 10. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of a thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of blocking layer 24 disclosed by Hsiao as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular circular profile or oval profile claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed a thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate is known in the art: Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 6B) that a thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the a thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate of Hsiao, because the thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate is similarly used for in instant invention and Chen, as suggested by Chen, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Hsiao in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 6B, and also see the annotated fig. 6B) that the blocking layer 122’ includes a first region and a second region, where:
The first region is apart from the first substrate 118
The second region is between the first substrate 118 and the first region
PNG
media_image1.png
559
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The blocking layer is 122’ thinner in the first region than in the second region
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao in view of Chen in further view of Abbott (US 6337445).
Regarding claim 3, Hsiao in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) most aspects of the instant invention, including a blocking layer 24.
However, Hsiao in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show that the thickness of the blocking layer is about 0.05 µm to about 0.2 µm in the first region and about 0.2 µm to about 0.4 µm in the second region. Abbott, in a similar device to Hsiao in view of Chen, shows (see, e.g., Abbott: fig. 6a) that the thickness of the blocking layer 803 is 0.125 µm (see, e.g., Abbott: col.8/II.35-45). Abbott further shows (see, e.g., Abbott: fig. 6a) that the thickness of the blocking layer 803 is resistant to environmental contamination and provide a low cost for the processed coating of the solders (see, e.g., Abbott: col.8/II.35-45).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a thickness of the blocking layer of Abbott in the device of Hsiao in view of Chen, in order to be resistant to environmental contamination and provide a low cost for the processed coating of the solders.
However, the differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned thicknesses, and Abbott has identified such thicknesses as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Abbott: col.8/II.35-45), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these diameter values in the device of Hsiao in view of Chen.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao in view of Chen in further view of Jiang (US 6610591).
Regarding claim 4, Hsiao in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) most aspects of the instant invention, including a blocking layer 24.
However, Hsiao in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show a first adhesive layer on an outer surface of the blocking layer 24. Jiang, in a similar device to Hsiao in view of Chen, shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) a first adhesive layer 44’’’ on an outer surface of the blocking layer 44’’. Jiang further shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) that the adhesive layer 44’’’ is an adhesion-promoting layer, added to the core material 42 to enhance the adhesion of the external alloy of the outer layer 44 to the core layer 42 (see, e.g., Jiang: col.8/II.10-13).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a first adhesive layer of Jiang in the device of Hsiao in view of Chen, in order to enhance the adhesion of the external alloy of the outer layer to the core layer.
Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) that the first adhesive layer 44’’’ includes a different material than the blocking layer 44’’ (see, e.g., Jiang: col.8/II.9-18).
Regarding claim 5, Hsiao in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) most aspects of the instant invention, including a blocking layer 24.
However, Hsiao in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show a second adhesive layer between the blocking layer 24 and the solder ball 22e. Jiang, in a similar device to Hsiao in view of Chen, shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) a second adhesive layer 44’ between the blocking layer 44’’ and the solder ball 42. Jiang further shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) that the adhesive layer 44’ is an adhesion-promoting layer, added to the core material 42 to enhance the adhesion of the external alloy of the outer layer 44 to the core layer 42 (see, e.g., Jiang: col.8/II.10-13).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second adhesive layer of Jiang in the device of Hsiao in view of Chen, in order to enhance the adhesion of the external alloy of the outer layer to the core layer.
Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) that the second adhesive layer 44’ includes a different material than the blocking layer 44’’ (see, e.g., Jiang: col.8/II.9-18).
Regarding claim 6, Hsiao in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) most aspects of the instant invention, including a blocking layer 24.
However, Hsiao in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show a first adhesive layer on an outer surface of the blocking layer 24. Jiang, in a similar device to Hsiao in view of Chen, shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) a first adhesive layer 44’’’ on an outer surface of the blocking layer 44’’. Jiang further shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) that the adhesive layer 44’’’ is an adhesion-promoting layer, added to the core material 42 to enhance the adhesion of the external alloy of the outer layer 44 to the core layer 42 (see, e.g., Jiang: col.8/II.10-13).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a first adhesive layer of Jiang in the device of Hsiao in view of Chen, in order to enhance the adhesion of the external alloy of the outer layer to the core layer.
Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B):
A second adhesive layer a second adhesive layer 44’ between the blocking layer 44’’ and the solder ball 42
The first adhesive layer 44’’’ includes a different material than the blocking layer 44’’ (see, e.g., Jiang: col.8/II.9-18)
The second adhesive layer 44’ includes a different material than the blocking layer 44’’ (see, e.g., Jiang: col.8/II.9-18)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang in further view of Kwon (US 9698088).
Regarding claim 7, Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang shows (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) the most aspects of the invention including a blocking layer 44’’, a first adhesive layer 44’’’, and a second adhesive layer 44’.
However, Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang fails (see, e.g., Jiang: fig. 3B) to show that the blocking layer 44’’ includes at least one selected from the group consisting of nickel (Ni), boron (B), phosphorous (P), and a compound thereof. Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang shows that the blocking layer 44’’ is made of aluminum (see, e.g., Jiang: col.8/II.13-18).
Kwon, in a similar device/material to Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang, teaches (see, e.g., Kwon: fig. 3) that the blocking layer 5/8 comprises nickel (Ni), boron (B), phosphorous (P), and a compound thereof (see, e.g., Kwon: col.6/II.56-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the blocking layer of Kwon or the blocking layer of Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as blocking layer in solder balls of semiconductor device packages, as taught by Kwon and Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Jiang in view of Kwon shows (see, e.g., Kwon: fig. 3) that the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer each include at least one selected from the group consisting of gold (Au), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), titanium (Ti), tungsten (W), and a compound thereof (see, e.g., Kwon: col.6/II.56-67, and col.5/II.63-67 – col.6/II.1-7).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao in view of Chen in further view of Son (US 2021/0375811).
Regarding claim 8, Hsiao in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E):
A second substrate 100 separated from the first substrate 10 by the solder ball 22e therebetween
A second bonding pad 104 on the second substrate 100
Solder layer 106 between the second bonding pad 104 and the first bonding pad 12
wherein:
The solder layer 106 is combined with the solder ball 22e
The solder ball 22e has a higher meting point than the solder layer 106 (see, e.g., Hsiao: par. [0016] and [0021]; for example, element 22e is made of SnZn, and the element 106 is made of SnBi)
However, Hsiao in view of Chen fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show that the solder layer 106 is a solder paste. Hsiao in view of Chen shows that the solder layer 106 is a eutectic solder material including alloys of tin, lead, silver, copper, nickel, bismuth, or combinations thereof. Son, in a similar device o Hsiao in view of Chen, shows (see, e.g., Son: fig. 3) that the solder layer 120A is a solder paste (see, e.g., Son: par. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the solder paste of Son or the eutectic solder layer of Hsiao in view of Chen because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as solder layers in semiconductor device packages, as taught by Son and Hsiao in view of Chen, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Son shows (see, e.g., Son: fig. 3) that a distance between the first bonding pad 212 and the solder paste 120A is about 10% to about 30% of the distance between the first bonding pad 212 and the second bonding pad 132.
However, the differences in the distance percentages will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned distance percentages, and Son has identified such distance percentages as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Son: par. [0124]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these diameter values in the device of Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Son.
Regarding claim 10, Hsiao in view of Chen in view of Son shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) that the solder paste 106 includes bismuth (Bi) (see, e.g., Hsiao: par. [0021]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2017/0005051) in view of Son (US 2021/0375811) in further view of Chen (US 2022/0216071).
Regarding claim 20, Hsiao shows (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) most aspects of the instant invention including semiconductor package 500, comprising:
A first substrate 10
A first bonding pad 12 on the first substrate 10
A solder ball 22e on the first bonding pad 12
A blocking layer 24 on the solder ball 22e
A second substrate 100 separated from the first substrate 10 by the solder ball 22e therebetween
A second bonding pad 104 on the second substrate 100
A solder layer 106 on the second bonding pad 104 and combined with the solder ball 22e
However, Hsiao fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show that the solder layer 106 is a solder paste. Hsiao shows that the solder layer 106 is a eutectic solder material including alloys of tin, lead, silver, copper, nickel, bismuth, or combinations thereof. Son, in a similar device o Hsiao, shows (see, e.g., Son: fig. 3) that the solder layer 120A is a solder paste (see, e.g., Son: par. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the solder paste of Son or the eutectic solder layer of Hsiao because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as solder layers in semiconductor device packages, as taught by Son and Hsiao, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Hsiao in view of Son, however, fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show that a thickness of the blocking layer 24 varies in a direction away from the first substrate 10. Chen, in a similar device to Hsiao in view of Son, shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 6B) that a thickness of the blocking layer 122’ varies in a direction from the first substrate 118 (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0034]). Chen further shows (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 6B) that the blocking layer 122’ is reformed on the redistribution structure 100, and solder bumps 220’ are formed on the interconnect structure with bond pads (see, e.g., Chen: par. [0031]), thus, the blocking layer 122’ on the solder ball 220’ is part of the hybrid structure that starts to melt and collapse at a lower temperature than the SAC balls and forms the interconnection between the bond pads.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a blocking layer of Chen with a thickness that varies in a direction from the first substrate in the device of Hsiao in view of Son, in order to form the interconnection between the bond pads.
Hsiaoin view of Son fails (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 4E) to show that a thickness of the blocking layer 24 varies in a direction away from the first substrate 10. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of a thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of blocking layer 24 disclosed by Hsiao in view of Son as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular circular profile or oval profile claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed a thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate is known in the art: Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, e.g., Chen: fig. 6B) that a thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the a thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate of Hsiao in view of Son, because the thickness of the blocking layer that varies in a direction away from the first substrate is similarly used for in instant invention and Chen, as suggested by Chen, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Hsiao in view of Son in view of Chen shows that the solder ball 22e has a higher meting point than the solder layer 106 (see, e.g., Hsiao: par. [0016] and [0021]; for example, element 22e is made of SnZn, and the element 106 is made of SnBi).
Hsiao in view of Son in view of Chen shows (see, e.g., Son: fig. 3) that a distance between the first bonding pad 212 and the solder paste 120A is about 10% to about 30% of the distance between the first bonding pad 212 and the second bonding pad 132.
However, the differences in the distance percentages will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned distance percentages, and Son has identified such distance percentages as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Son: par. [0124]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these diameter values in the device of Hsiao in view of Son in view of Chen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16, and 19 are 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 TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email 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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814