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 § 102
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 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 9-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchwalter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0251281)
Regarding claim 9, Buchwalter teaches an electronic device comprising:
a first inner terminal (Fig. 4, inner terminal 12);
a fusible material (fusible material 6d/6e/6c) coupled to the first inner terminal (Fig. 4);
a first metallic core ball (metallic core ball 17a) proximate the first inner terminal and coupled to the fusible material (Fig. 4);
a second metallic core ball (metallic core ball 17b) distal from the first inner terminal and coupled to the fusible material (Fig. 4); and
a second inner terminal (second inner terminal 10) coupled to the fusible material and proximate the second metallic core ball (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 9, wherein a sidewall of the fusible material comprises a substantially convex geometry in a region encircling a point between the first metallic core ball and the second metallic core ball (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 9, further comprising a dielectric structure (dielectricic structure not labeled, but see dark shaded layer on terminals 12, which is inherently dielectric or all terminals would be shorted together) that defines an opening over the first inner terminal (see Fig. 4), wherein the fusible material extends through the opening to the first inner terminal (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the first metallic core ball contacts the second metallic core ball (see Fig. 4).
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.
Claims 1-8, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0387100) in view of Buchwalter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0251281)
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a first substrate (Fig. 26B, first substrate 112);
an electronic component (component 116) disposed over a side of the first substrate (Fig. 26B);
a vertical interconnect (222/224) coupled to the side of the first substrate, the vertical interconnect comprising:
a first metallic core ball (ball 222) proximate the first substrate;
a second metallic core ball (ball 224) disposed above the first metallic core ball and distal from the first substrate; and
a fusible material (solder) coupling the first metallic core ball with the second metallic core ball, wherein the fusible material is coupled to the first substrate (see Fig. 26B); and
a second substrate (second substrate 302) disposed over the electronic component and the vertical interconnect (Fig. 26B), wherein the fusible material of the vertical interconnect is coupled to the second substrate (see Fig. 26B, solder is connected to second substrate as well).
Yang does not specifically teach that the solder balls are metallic cores with a fusible material bonding the first substrate, balls and second substrate. However, Buchwalter teaches a similar package in which the solder balls can be metallic cores surrounded by a fusible (solder) that connects the upper substrate, metallic cores, and bottom substrate (see Buchwalter Fig. 4, metallic cores 17a, 17b and solder 6e, 6c, 6d). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the solder balls of Yang could have been replaced by metallic core solder balls because Yang teaches that the particular material of the balls can be a wide range (Yang paragraph [0053]), and it would have been a simple substitution of one solder ball for another with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a diameter of the first metallic core ball is greater than a diameter of the second metallic core ball (see Yang Fig. 26B, 224 is smaller diameter than 222).
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a sidewall of the vertical interconnect comprises a substantially convex geometry in a region encircling a point between the first metallic core ball and the second metallic core ball (see Yang Fig. 26B).
Regarding claim 4, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a height of the electronic component measured from the side of the first substrate is greater than a diameter of the first metallic core ball (see Yang Fig. 26B).
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first substrate comprises:
an inner terminal (labeled in Fig. 18 as 111); and
a dielectric structure (dielectric structure 118) that defines an opening over the inner terminal (Fig. 118), wherein the fusible material extends through the opening to the inner terminal (Fig. 118).
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 5, wherein the fusible material extends from the opening onto a portion of the dielectric structure adjacent the opening (see Fig. 26B, fusible material through opening in 118).
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first metallic core ball contacts the second metallic core ball (see Buchwalter Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a second vertical interconnect coupled to the first substrate and disposed lateral to the electronic component (see Yang Fig. 26B), wherein the second vertical interconnect comprises a third metallic core ball proximate the first substrate and a fourth metallic core ball distal from the first substrate (see Yang Fig. 26B and Buchwalter Fig. 4, several adjacent interconnects each comprising stacked solder balls).
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches a method of making an electronic device, comprising:
providing a first substrate (Fig. 26B, first substrate 112);
providing a first metallic core ball (solder ball 222) on the first substrate;
providing a second substrate (second substrate 302);
providing a second metallic core ball (second ball 224) on a side of the second substrate (Fig. 26B);
providing an electronic component (electronic component 116) on the side of the second substrate (Fig. 26B); and
coupling the first metallic core ball to the second metallic core ball with a fusible material (solder, see Fig. 26B).
Yang does not specifically teach that the solder balls are metal core solder balls. However, Buchwalter teaches a similar package in which the solder balls can be metallic cores surrounded by a fusible material (solder) (see Buchwalter Fig. 4, metallic cores 17a, 17b and solder 6e, 6c, 6d). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the solder balls of Yang could have been replaced by metallic core solder balls because Yang teaches that the particular material of the balls can be a wide range (Yang paragraph [0053]), and it would have been a simple substitution of one solder ball for another with predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the method of claim 15, wherein a diameter of the first metallic core ball is greater than a diameter of the second metallic core ball (see Yang Fig. 26B).
Regarding claim 18, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising providing an encapsulant between the first substrate and the second substrate (Yang Fig. 26B, encapsulant 118).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchwalter in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 11, Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 9, but does not teach further comprising an electronic component adjacent the first metallic core ball, wherein a height of the electronic component is greater than a height of the first metallic core ball.
However, Yang teaches a similar solder ball stack can be used to connect two substrates with a die between the substrates that is taller than the first solder ball (see Yang Fig. 26B). it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that at die could have been embedded in the package of Buchwalter because this allows for higher density of chips in the package and environmental protection of the chip.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchwalter in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0221868).
Regarding claim 13, Buchwalter teaches the electronic device of claim 12, but does not teach wherein the fusible material extends from the opening onto a portion of the dielectric structure adjacent the opening.
However, Kim teaches that the solder can extend past the opening onto a portion adjacent to the opening of the dielectric (see Kim Fig. 3, solder 1310 extends out of opening onto top surface of dielectric 1130). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the solder, after reflow, could extend onto the dielectric top surface because this ensures that 100% of the pad is contacting the solder, reducing total resistance at the interface.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Buchwalter, further in view of Katkar et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0325543).
Regarding claim 16, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the fusible material comprises a substantially convex geometry in a region encircling a point between the first metallic core ball and the second metallic core ball.
However, Katkar teaches that a similar stack of solid core solder balls can have a convex sidewall geometry for the solder (see Katkar Fig. 20, balls 210.2). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the solder could have conformally clung to the surface of the core balls, thus forming a convex shape, because the solder is initially formed in a roughly even film over the balls, and would tend to maintain that shape.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Buchwalter, further in view of Manack et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0157698).
Regarding claim 19, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the method of claim 15, wherein coupling the first metallic core ball to the second metallic core ball further comprises applying a temperature greater than approximately 220 ºC for a period greater than approximately 15 seconds.
Yang and Buchwalter do not specifically teach the temperature and time for the reflow process. However, Kaimori teaches that solder reflow can be above 220C for over 15 seconds (see Manack paragraph ). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the reflow of Yang could have used the temperature and time of Manack because it would have been a simple substitution of the unknown reflow temperature and time of Yang for the known reflow temperature of Manack with predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Buchwalter, further in view of Dong (CN 201110194659).
Regarding claim 20, Yang in view of Buchwalter teaches the method of claim 15, wherein coupling the first metallic core ball to the second metallic core ball further comprises applying a temperature of approximately 255 ºC.
However, Dong teaches that a solder reflow can happen at about 255C (see Translation paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date that the reflow of Yang could have used the temperature of Dong because it would have been a simple substitution of the unknown reflow temperature of Yang for the known reflow temperature of Dong with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan G Clinton whose telephone number is (571)270-0525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899