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 because the sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1. The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(t).
The drawings make improper use of shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. Solid black or gray shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(m) and 1.84(h(3)). See Figure(s) 1-3.
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.
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
“a third solder of a bottom of the solder ball, wherein the third solder is vertically between the second solder and the third solder” (Claim 1),
“the second solder on a top surface of a second package substrate” (Claim 6),
“the solder ball conductively couples the second solder on the bottom surface of the package substrate to the second solder on the top surface of the second package substrate” (Claim 7),
“a fourth solder on a bottom of the solder ball, wherein the third solder is vertically between the fourth solder and the third solder” (Claim 8),
“the second solder on a top surface of a second package substrate” (Claim 13), and
“wherein the solder ball conductively couples the second solder and the third solder on the bottom surface of the package substrate to the second solder on the top surface of the second package substrate” (Claim 14)
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: BGA STIM Package Comprising Indium Solder STIM and SnBi Alloy BGA Solder Pads”
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1 and 8 refer to a “first solder” which is disclosed as “STIM 110/210”, a “second solder” which is disclosed as a “LTS paste 132/232”, and Claim 8 refers to a “third solder” which is disclosed as a “LTS joint reinforced paste 230” and “fourth solder” which is disclosed as a “LTS paste…233”.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “weherin the third solder”, which includes a misspelling of “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “a third solder on a bottom of the solder ball, wherein the third solder is vertically between the second solder and the third solder” is unclear as to how the third solder is vertically between the second solder and itself. It appears that the claim intended to read “wherein in the ball is vertically between…” and therefore, for purposes of examination, will be read as such.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “the second solder on a top surface of a second package substrate” in combination with the limitations of the parent claim of “a second solder on a bottom surface of the package substrate” and “a third solder on a bottom of the solder ball, wherein the third solder is vertically between the second solder and the third solder” is indefinite as to the differences between the third solder and the second solder and the positioning of the second solder. For purposes of examination, the claims will be read as “wherein in the ball is vertically between…” and “the third solder on a top surface of a second package substrate”.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “wherein the solder ball conductive couples the second solder on the bottom surface of the package substrate to the second solder on the top surface of the second package substrate” in combination with the limitations from the parent claim of “a second solder on a bottom surface of the package substrate” and “a third solder on a bottom of the solder ball, wherein the third solder is vertically between the second solder and the third solder” is indefinite as to the differences between the third solder and the second solder and the positioning of the second solder, similar to the confusion caused by the limitations of Claim 6. For purposes of examination, the claims will be read as “wherein in the ball is vertically between…”, “the third solder on a top surface of a second package substrate”, and “…to the third solder on the top surface of the second package substrate”.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “a fourth solder on a bottom of the solder ball, weherin the third solder is vertically between the fourth solder and the third solder” is unclear as to how the third solder is vertically between itself. It appears that the claim intended to read “wherein the ball is vertically between…” and therefore, for purposes of examination, will be read as such.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation of “the second solder on a top surface of a second package substrate” in combination with the limitations of the parent claim of “a second solder on a bottom surface of the package substrate” and “a fourth solder on a bottom of the solder ball, weherin the third solder is vertically between the fourth solder and the third solder” is indefinite as to the differences between the fourth solder and the second solder and the positioning of the second solder. For purposes of examination, the claims will be read as “wherein the ball is vertically between…” and “the fourth solder on a top surface of a second package substrate”.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “wherein the solder ball conductive couples the second solder…on the bottom surface of the package substrate to the second solder on the top surface of the second package substrate” in combination with the limitations from the parent claim of “a second solder on a bottom surface of the package substrate” and “a fourth solder on a bottom of the solder ball, weherin the third solder is vertically between the fourth solder and the third solder” is indefinite as to the differences between the fourth solder and the second solder and the positioning of the second solder, similar to the confusion caused by the limitations of Claim 13. For purposes of examination, the claims will be read as “wherein the ball is vertically between…” and “the fourth solder on a top surface of a second package substrate”, and “…to the fourth solder on the top surface of the second package substrate”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a third solder” in claim 8 is used by the claim to mean “an epoxy paste with metal powder”, while the accepted meaning is “a fusible metal alloy”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine, or mention at all the term. The specification uses the term “LTS joint reinforced paste” instead.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (U.S. 2015/0235915) in view of Touzelbaev et al. (U.S. 2010/0237496) and Sakai et al. (U.S. 2011/0031002).
Regarding Claim 1, Liang et al. Figures 1g and 1n discloses a semiconductor package, comprising:
a die on a top surface of a package substrate (die 10, substrate 18);
an integrated heat spreader (IHS) on the top surface of the package substrate, wherein the IHS has a bottom surface positioned above the die (IHS 40);
a TIM coupling a top surface of the die to the bottom surface of the IHS (TIM 42)
a UBM on a bottom surface of the package substrate (UBM 26’); and
and a solder ball on the UBM on the bottom surface of the package substrate, wherein the solder ball is in direct physical contact with the UBM (solder ball 26).
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the TIM is a first solder comprising 95% to 99.99% indium solder, that the UBM comprises a second solder comprising an alloy including tin (Sn) and bismuth (Bi), wherein the second solder has a weight percentage of the Bi that is greater than 43%, or a third solder on a bottom of the solder ball, wherein in the third solder is vertically between the second solder and the third solder (interpreted as “a third solder on a bottom of the solder ball, wherein in the ball is vertically between the second solder and the third solder”).
Liang et al., does disclose another embodiment wherein a third solder is on the bottom of a solder ball, wherein the solder ball is vertically between a UBM and the third solder (Liang et al., third solder 230, presolder ball, 230, UBM 110B, Figure 11a-b) and that doing so provides a sufficient standoff height (Liang et al., Paragraph 089). Touzelbaev discloses that using indium as a TIM lends favorable thermal properties for high-power devices (Paragraph 7) and Sakai et al. discloses that using an alloy including tin (Sn) and bismuth (Bi), wherein the weight percentage of the Bi that is greater than 43% as a UBM increases reliability and density (Paragraphs 57 94). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to create a device wherein the TIM is a first solder comprising 95% to 99.99% indium solder and wherein the UBM comprises a second solder comprising an alloy including tin (Sn) and bismuth (Bi), wherein the second solder has a weight percentage of the Bi that is greater than 43%, and a third solder on a bottom of the solder ball, wherein in the third solder is vertically between the second solder and the third solder (interpreted as “a third solder on a bottom of the solder ball, wherein in the ball is vertically between the second solder and the third solder”) in Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. in order to increased device wiring density, reliability, and heat dissipating capabilities and to provide sufficient standoff height.
Regarding Claim 2, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the bottom surface of the package substrate includes a ball grid array (BGA), and wherein the BGA includes a pad (Liang et al., BGA 44, Figure 1b).
Regarding Claim 3, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the top surface of the die includes a backside metal (BSM) layer, and wherein the BSM layer is between the first solder and the die (Touzelbaev et al., Paragraph 07).
Regarding Claim 4, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 2, wherein the solder ball is an alloy of Sn, silver (Ag), and copper (Cu) (SAC), and wherein the solder ball is conductively coupled to the pad on the bottom surface of the package substrate (Touzelbaev et al., Paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 5, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 4, wherein the package substrate conductively couples the die to the pad, the second solder, and the solder ball (Liang et al, substrate 18, Figure 1n).
Regarding Claim 6, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 4, further comprising:
an electronic device on the bottom surface of the package substrate (Liang et al. device 32, Figure 1n);
the second solder on a top surface of a second package substrate (interpreted as “the third solder“ Liang et al., second substrate 30, Figure 1n);
and an underfill between the bottom surface of the package substrate and the top surface of the second package substrate, wherein the underfill surrounds the second solder, the solder ball, and the electronic device (Liang et al., underfill 46, Figure 1n).
Regarding Claim 7, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 6, wherein the solder ball conductively couples the second solder on the bottom surface of the package substrate to the second solder on the top surface of the second package substrate (interpreted as “the third solder” Liang et al., Figure 1n, solder ball 26, package 30, package 18).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (U.S. 2015/0235915) in view of Touzelbaev et al. (U.S. 2010/0237496) and Sakai et al. (U.S. 2011/0031002) and Fukuhara et al. (U.S. 2018/0233473).
Regarding Claim 8, Liang et al. discloses a semiconductor package, comprising:
a die on a top surface of a package substrate, wherein the package substrate includes an interposer;
an integrated heat spreader (IHS) on the top surface of the package substrate, wherein the IHS has a bottom surface positioned above the die;
a TIM coupling a top surface of the die to the bottom surface of the IHS, the first solder comprising 95% to 99.99% indium solder;
a UBM on a bottom surface of the package substrate, the second solder comprising an alloy including Sn and Bi, wherein the second solder has a weight percentage of the Bi that is between 35% to 58%;
a solder ball on the second solder on the bottom surface of the package substrate, wherein the solder ball is in direct physical contact with the second solder and with the third solder;
a fourth solder on a bottom of the solder ball, weherin the third solder is vertically between the fourth solder and the third solder (interpreted as “wherein the ball is”).
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the TIM is a the first solder comprising 95% to 99.99% indium solder or that the UBM comprises a second solder comprising an alloy including tin (Sn) and bismuth (Bi), wherein the second solder has a weight percentage of the Bi that is greater than 43%, a third solder on and around the second solder and the bottom surface of the package substrate, wherein the third solder includes an epoxy, a flux, and a metal powder, or a fourth solder on a bottom of the solder ball, weherin the third solder is vertically between the fourth solder and the third solder (interpreted as “wherein the ball is”).
Liang et al., does disclose another embodiment wherein a fourth solder is on the bottom of a solder ball, wherein the solder ball is vertically between a UBM and the fourth solder (Liang et al., fourth solder 230, presolder ball, 230, UBM 110B, Figure 11a-b) and that doing so provides a sufficient standoff height (Liang et al., Paragraph 089). Touzelbaev discloses that using indium as a TIM lends favorable thermal properties for high-power devices (Paragraph 7) and Sakai et al. discloses that using an alloy including tin (Sn) and bismuth (Bi), wherein the weight percentage of the Bi that is greater than 43% as a UBM increases reliability and density (Paragraphs 57 94). Fukuhara discloses a third solder comprising a metal, flux, and epoxy wherein it increases device reliability (resin 51, Figure 2b, Paragraph 49). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to create a device wherein the TIM is a the first solder comprising 95% to 99.99% indium solder and wherein the UBM comprises a second solder comprising an alloy including tin (Sn) and bismuth (Bi), wherein the second solder has a weight percentage of the Bi that is greater than 43% and a third solder on and around the second solder and the bottom surface of the package substrate, wherein the third solder includes an epoxy, a flux, and a metal powder, and a fourth solder on a bottom of the solder ball, weherin the third solder is vertically between the fourth solder and the third solder (interpreted as “wherein the ball is”) in Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. and Fukuhara et al. in order to increased device wiring density, reliability, and heat dissipating capabilities.
Regarding Claim 9, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. and Fukuhara et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 8, wherein the bottom surface of the package substrate includes a ball grid array (BGA), and wherein the BGA includes a pad (Liang et al., BGA 44, Figure 1n).
Regarding Claim 10, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. and Fukuhara et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 8, wherein the top surface of the die includes a backside metal (BSM) layer, and wherein the BSM layer is between the first solder and the die (Touzelbaev et al., Paragraph 07).
Regarding Claim 11, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. and Fukuhara et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 9, wherein the solder ball is an alloy of Sn, Ag and Cu, and wherein the solder ball is conductively coupled to the pad on the bottom surface of the package substrate (Touzelbaev et al., Paragraph 07).
Regarding Claim 12 Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. and Fukuhara et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the package substrate conductively couples the die to the pad, the third solder, the second solder, and the solder ball (Liang et al., package 18, die 10, pad 38, Figure 1n).
Regarding Claim 13, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. and Fukuhara et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 11, further comprising:
an electronic device on the bottom surface of the package substrate (device 32, Figure 1n);
and the second solder on a top surface of a second package substrate, wherein the second package substrate includes a printed circuit board (PCB) (interpreted as “the fourth solder “. Liang et al., PCB 30, Figure 1n).
Regarding Claim 14, Liang et al. in view of Touzelbaev et al. and Sakai et al. and Fukuhara et al. further discloses the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the solder ball conductively couples the second solder and the third solder on the bottom surface of the package substrate to the second solder on the top surface of the second package substrate (interpreted as “the fourth solder “. Liang et al., solder ball 26, Figure 1n).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Abbigale Boyle whose telephone number is 571-270-7919. The Examiner can normally be reached from 11 A.M to 7 P.M., Monday through Friday.
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 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance form a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Abbigale Boyle
Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ABBIGALE A BOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899