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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US Pub. 2016/0049176).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, LEE teaches a wafer level chip scale package with a rhombus shape comprising:
a semiconductor chip 15-1 with a rhombus shape (Fig. 1-2 & Para [0049]); and
a solder ball array comprising a plurality of solder balls formed on one surface (e.g. bottom surface) of the semiconductor chip 15-1 (see unlabeled solder balls in Fig. 2),
Though LEE teaches a rhombus-shape chip, however, LEE is silent on wherein
among four interior angles (V1-V4) of the semiconductor chip 15-1, two of the four interior angles facing each other in a short diagonal direction are approximately 120°, and two of the four interior angles facing each other in a long diagonal direction are approximately 60°. LEE teaches in Para [0049] wherein the semiconductor chip 15-1 is of rhombus shape, and rhombus shape is widely known to have internal angles of 90° or other angular dimensions of approximately 120° and 60° that are among the most obvious rhombus angle dimensions. As such, one of the ordinary skill being one of the ordinary creativity would have found it obvious to employ the claim angle dimensions of 120° and 60° for a rhombus-shape chip to optimize the area of semiconductor chip). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, LEE teaches the wafer level chip scale package of claim 1, wherein separation distances between adjacent solder balls constituting the solder ball array are the same (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, LEE teaches the wafer level chip scale package of claim 2, wherein the semiconductor chip 15-1 has a planar shape formed by two equilateral triangles, and the plurality of solder balls constituting the solder ball array are symmetrically arranged on the one surface of the semiconductor chip with respect to a short diagonal and a long diagonal of the semiconductor chip (Fig. 1-2, also see Fig. 5-Fig. 7b).
Regarding claim 4, LEE teaches the wafer level chip scale package of claim 3, wherein a triangle formed by three line segments connecting three center points of three of the solder balls that are adjacent to each other is equilateral (LEE teaches solder balls on the bottom surface of chip 15-1, note solder balls 37 and the unlabeled solder balls under chip 15 toward the center of the bottom surface, in Fig. 1-2 (follow the trajectory of line A-A in Fig. 1). Given the rhombus shape of chip 15-1, a triangle is formed by three line segments connecting three center points of three of the solder balls that are adjacent to each other is equilateral). However, if it is determined that LEE does not teach solder balls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that LEE teaches a rhombus-shaped chip that does not meet the claim angle dimensions of 120° for the two short diagonal direction and 60° for the two long diagonal direction. While LEE discloses that the rhombus-shaped chip can be a square or the internal angles of 90° (Para [0094]; however, Lee does not preclude the use of other rhombus shapes for the semiconductor chip (see Para [0095]). The Examiner would like to point out that the use of 120° for the two short diagonal direction and 60° for the two long diagonal direction would have required ordinary skill in view of LEE through routine experimentation as said angle dimensions are among the most widely known rhombus dimensions. Though not relied upon in the rejection; however, Li et al provide evidence of the widely known usage of the claim angle dimensions of 120° and 60° for a rhombus-shaped chip/die (see Fig. 1-2 and Para [0077 & 0090]). As such, the arguments is not found to be persuasive
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818