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 .
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 “second reinforcement structure” in claim 59 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the second reinforcement structure configured to compensate” in claim 59.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 59-65 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. Claim 59 recites “wherein the substrate comprises a second reinforcement structure located between at least one of the bonding structures contacting a first bonding pad and the first reinforcement structure, wherein the second reinforcement structure is configured to compensate for thermal stresses resulting from the attachment of the first reinforcement structure to the first side of the substrate”. While the second reinforcement structure is mentioned in paragraph 0055, which is the only place it is mentioned, it is not shown in the drawings; in particular figure 2C. Thus, 0055 and the drawings do not support second reinforcement structure being between a bonding structure and the first reinforcement structure (it could be in the space between adjacent bonding structures; see figure 2B).
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.
Claims 59-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 59 limitation “the second reinforcement structure configured to compensate” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is insufficient because the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 46-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2014/0291843 A1) and Hattori et al. (US 2015/0061129 A1).
Regarding claims 46-52, Jiang teaches:
A method of fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
mounting a semiconductor die [die (12); figures 1A-C] over a first side of a substrate [package substrate (10)];
providing a plurality of bonding structures [hybrid solder ball (16)] contacting respective first bonding pads [unshown connection pads; 0030] located on a second side of the substrate, wherein each of the bonding structures comprises:
a core structure [SAC305 ball; 0025] comprising first alloy comprising a composition given by Snx Agy Cuz, wherein x is a first weight fraction that is at least 0.952, y is a second weight fraction that has a value that is equal to or less than 0.04, and z is a third weight fraction that has a value that is equal to or less than 0.008 [SAC305 is made of 96.5% tin, 3% silver, and 0.5% copper]; and
a shell structure [low temperature solder (LTS) coating; 0025, 0028, 0029, 0044] comprising a second alloy comprising a composition given by Snx Biy, wherein x is a first weight fraction having a value in a range from 0.42 to 0.6 and y is a second weight fraction having a value in a range from 0.4 to 0.58 [note that in order to get a liquidus of ~138°C as taught by Jiang it is intrinsic that the Bi must be within the claimed range and also closer to 0.58; see cited NIST Bi-Cu-Sn System and 0025, 0028, 0029, 0044];
performing a first reflow process at a first temperature to bond the bonding structures to the first bonding pads [0029, 0030, 0036, and figure 1A];
aligning the substrate over a support [PCB (18)] having a plurality of second bonding pads [pads (22)] such that each of the bonding structures contacts a corresponding second bonding pad [figure 1B]; and
performing a second reflow process at a second temperature that is at least 235°C to melt the core structures and the shell structures and form reflowed bonding material that bonds the bonding structures to second bonding pads to bond the substrate to the support [second reflow at 230-240°C; 0033],
wherein the first temperature is below 190°C/approximately 170°C to 180°C [a first reflow temperature of less than about 170/200°C; 0029].
Jiang and the claims differ in that Jiang does not teach the exact same ranges as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time/before the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Jiang overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003); In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974), and MPEP 2144.05. This reasoning applies to any claim and limitation in this action where a range is being claimed.
Jiang does not teach:
wherein relative sizes of the core structure and the shell structure are controlled such that a total weight fraction of bismuth in the plurality of bonding structures is in a range from 4 % to 15 %;
wherein the reflowed bonding material comprises a radially varying spatial distribution of bismuth, with higher concentrations of bismuth near the surface of the reflowed bonding material relative to a concentration in an interior of the reflowed bonding material, and the reflowed bonding material comprises a room temperature tensile strength that is greater than 80 MPa, between 80 MPa and 100 MPa;
wherein the shell structure has a thickness that is between 15 µm and 40 µm;
wherein each of the core structures of the bonding structures has a diameter between 100 µm and 600 µm, and
wherein the reflowed bonding material comprises intermetallic compounds formed as precipitates comprising one or more of Ag3Sn and Cu6Sn5.
Hattori teaches a solder ball having a core and shell wherein the thickness of the shell is 100 µm or less and the core is 1-1000µm and a specific example is 30µm and 265µm, respectively; 0044, 0046.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture the core to any size, including that claimed, since this is a known option. Additionally, the size of the core is also dependent upon the components being soldered so altering this size is nothing more than a routine step. As for the shell thickness, since Jiang requires a shell, Hattori teaches the claimed shell thickness is a known option, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the thickness of the shell to that claimed in order to produce the desired results in the reflowed solder, minus any unexpected results. Furthermore, making a solder ball having a 30µm shell and a 265µm core would fall in the middle of the ranges noted in PA Pub 0065. Thus, it is the examiner’s position that the use of this ball in the prior art method would naturally result in the claimed total weight of Bi, the spatial distribution of Bi, tensile strength, and precipitates.
Regarding claims 53-57, the limitations of these claims are addressed by the rejections of claims 46-52.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2014/0291843 A1) in view of Hattori et al. (US 2015/0061129 A1) as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (US 2019/0115269 A1).
Regarding claim 58, Jiang does not teach:
wherein mounting the semiconductor die over the first side of the substrate comprises mounting a plurality of semiconductor dies to a first side of an interposer and mounting the interposer to the first side of the substrate.
Pan teaches a semiconductor package comprising dies (31, 32) with solder bumps (320), copper stiffener ring (40), interposer (20), and package substrate (10); wherein bumped dies are mounted on the interposer which in turn is mounted on the package substrate along with the stiffener ring, wherein the semiconductor package comprises pads with connecting elements (102) which is further mounted on PCB (12); 0056-0057, 0064, 0081 and figures 2, 17, and 24.
Note that Jiang is open to using the disclosed method to manufacture other electronic packages; 0031.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method of Jiang to manufacture any desired semiconductor package, including that of Pan, minus any unexpected results. Note that while Pan does not teach the PCB has bonding pads Jiang does teach PCB (18) has pads (22) upon which solder balls (16) are bonded; figure 1A. It would have been obvious, if not conventional practice, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a PCB with pads, as taught by Jiang, in order to facilitate bonding and have desired electrical contacts.
Claims 59-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2014/0291843 A1) in view of Hattori et al. (US 2015/0061129 A1), Pan et al. (US 2019/0115269 A1), and Liu et al. (US 2012/0235303 A1).
Regarding claim 59, Jiang and Hattori teach is noted it the rejection of claim 46.
What neither Jiang nor Hattori teach is:
attaching a first reinforcement structure on the first side of the substrate;
wherein the substrate comprises a second reinforcement structure located between at least one of the bonding structures contacting a first bonding pad and the first reinforcement structure; and
wherein the second reinforcement structure is configured to compensate for thermal stresses resulting from the attachment of the first reinforcement structure to the first side of the substrate.
Concerning the first reinforcement structure:
Pan teaches a semiconductor package comprising dies (31, 32) with solder bumps (320), copper stiffener ring (40), interposer (20), and package substrate (10); wherein bumped dies are mounted on the interposer which in turn is mounted on the package substrate along with the stiffener ring, wherein the semiconductor package comprises pads with connecting elements (102) which is further mounted on PCB (12); 0056-0057, 0064, 0081 and figures 2, 17, and 24.
Note that Jiang is open to using the disclosed method to manufacture other electronic packages; 0031.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method of Jiang to manufacture any desired semiconductor package, including that of Pan, minus any unexpected results. Note that while Pan does not teach the PCB has bonding pads Jiang does teach PCB (18) has pads (22) upon which solder balls (16) are bonded; figure 1A. It would have been obvious, if not conventional practice, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a PCB with pads, as taught by Jiang, in order to facilitate bonding and have desired electrical contacts.
Concerning the second reinforcement structure:
Liu teaches controlling warpage in carrier substrate (120, 420) by embedding reinforcement structures (142, 242, 442) in the periphery regions of the carrier substrate; abs, 0017, 0019, and figures 1A, 2A, and 4A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the reinforcement structures of Liu into the Pan package substrate in order to further control warpage of the package substrate, as this is a known solution for warpage and/or would allow for a multiplied effect. In doing so, the Liu reinforcement structure would be embedded around the periphery of the package substrate and would generally be between the stiffener ring and connecting elements.
Regarding claims 60-65, the limitations of these claims are addressed by the rejections of claims 46 and 59.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument “that Hattori nor Jiang provides any data or evidence regarding the tensile strength or Bi distribution of a reflowed core-shell solder having the claimed compositions”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The applicant argues,
“Hattori discloses a Cu core ball rather than a tin-silver-copper (SAC) alloy core with Sn- 3Ag-0.5Cu solder plating, focused on controlling core eccentricity via slow heating rates during reflow. Hattori's shell thickness disclosures (20-50 pm generally, 30 pm specifically) are directed to achieving uniform solder flow and core centering for the Cu-core system. Hattori fails to provide any teaching or suggestion regarding controlling Bi weight fraction in a SAC/Sn- Bi hybrid structure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Hattori's eccentricity- focused Cu-core disclosures to optimize Bi content in the SAC-core/Sn-Bi-shell system as disclosed by Jiang for the purpose of achieving a specific tensile strength or radial Bi distribution.”
The examiner is not stating that the prior art references optimize the Bi content, but instead the is stating that since all of the claimed conditions are meet then it naturally flows that any claimed result is achieved. Note that the applicant has not provided any evidence why this does not happen.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Note that Jiang teaches the solder balls may be about 300 µm but fails to teach the thickness of the shell. Thus, one must look elsewhere for help. It is not unreasonable nor improper to look to Hattori and incorporate the disclosed dimensions. Additionally, Hattori clearly depicts the shell being enough to bond the core ball which is what Jiang desires for the first reflow.
The applicant argues,
“However, Jiang's core-shell structure (SAC core with Sn-Bi shell) is designed to maintain distinct melting behaviors: the shell melts first at low temperature (~170-200°C) without melting the core, but the post-second reflow (>235°C) results in a "uniform alloy" and "roughly homogeneous mixture" without radial gradients or non-uniformity (see Jiang [0025], [0037], Figs. lA-1B).”
The results of uniform and roughly homogeneous are two states that contradict each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the "roughly homogeneous mixture" is the most likely, as holding at the bonding temperature long enough for the solders to uniformly diffuse would be an incredible waste of time and energy. Furthermore, "roughly homogeneous mixture" is taught as an outcome and as such the roughly homogeneous mixture teaching does not rule out the radial gradients. Applicant has not claimed a degree at which this is to occur. Thus, since the prior art process is identical to that claimed then the prior art process will achieve any claimed result.
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 CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights