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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/391,351 filed on 12/20/2023.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2011/0260317 to Lu et al. (Lu) in view of US Pub # 2004/0072387 to Hong et al. (Hong).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lu discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 8) comprising:
a semiconductor device main body (Fig. 8: 10); and
an electrode terminal (Fig. 8: elements 18, 22, 26 and 28) provided at a side of a main surface of the semiconductor device main body (10) and partially protruding outward from the main surface,
wherein the electrode terminal (Fig. 8: elements 18, 22, 26 and 28) includes:
a pillar layer (Fig. 8: combinations of 18 and 22 considered sufficient to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the label “pillar layer”) made of copper (¶0015-0017) and electrically connected to a wiring layer (Fig. 8: 12) disposed within the semiconductor device main body (10); and
a bonding layer (Fig. 8: 28) formed over a surface of the pillar layer (18, 22) on an opposite side of the pillar layer from the wiring layer (12), and
wherein the pillar layer (combinations of 18 and 22) includes:
a first portion (the entire layer 18 is a first portion; see Examiner’s Mark-up 1 below); and
a columnar second portion (22; see Examiner’s Mark-up 1 below) formed over a central portion (middle portion of 18) of a surface of the first portion (18) on an opposite side of the first portion from the wiring layer (12).
PNG
media_image1.png
325
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lu fails to disclose a disc-shaped for a first portion.
Hong teaches an under bump mentalizations (UBM) (110) (see Examiner’s Mark-up 2 below) that has a barrier material nickel (110a) and small copper layer (110b) on top of the nickel and furthermore it shows a disc-shaped (Figs. 2A-2D) which follows the same shape as the pillar or bump above it, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shape of the first portion of the pillar layer of Lu with the disc-shaped as taught by Hong so as to allow a better reflow of the solder bumps (¶0014-0018).
PNG
media_image2.png
694
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2011/0260317 to Lu et al. (Lu) in view of US Pub # 2004/0072387 to Hong et al. (Hong) and further in view of US Pub # 2014/0077359 to Tsai et al. (Tsai).
Regarding claim 2, Lu as previously modified disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends. Lu discloses a connection portion (connection portion is formed where the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion are met) between the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion.
Lu as previously modified fails to disclose a connection portion between the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion is formed into a curved surface that is inwardly convex in a vertical cross-sectional view
Tsai teaches a conductive pillar (e.g., a copper pillar bump, Fig. 1: 16) having a tapering curved profile (necking profile), wherein the sidewalls are concave from the bottom toward the top, thereby forming a curved transition region between a wider lower portion and a narrower upper portion of the pillar (see, e.g., ¶0014, 0022, 0028 and 0030 describing the necking profile and corresponding figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pillar structure of Lu as previously modified to include a curved connection portion between the first portion and the second portion, as taught by the Tsai in order to reduce stress concentration at the junction, improve mechanical reliability, and enhance adhesion between the portions of the pillar, which are well-known design considerations in semiconductor interconnect structures (see ¶0020).
Furthermore, forming such a curved transition is consistent with known fabrication processes (e.g., electroplating and material reflow), which tend to produce rounded or curved profiles rather than sharp corners, thereby further supporting the obviousness of the claimed configuration.
Regarding claim 3, Lu as previously modified disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends. Lu discloses a connection portion (connection portion is formed where the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion are met) between the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion.
Lu as previously modified fails to disclose wherein an annular groove that surrounds the second portion and has an arc-shaped inner surface which is convex toward the wiring layer in a horizontal cross-sectional view is formed over the surface of the first portion at a peripheral edge portion of the second portion, and wherein a connection portion between the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion is formed into a curved surface that is inwardly convex in a vertical cross-sectional view.
Tsai teaches a conductive pillar having a tapering curved (necking) profile (Fig. 1: 16), wherein the sidewalls are concave from the bottom toward the top, thereby forming a circumferential recessed region surrounding the pillar at the junction between a wider lower portion and a narrower upper portion (see, e.g., (see, e.g., ¶0014, 0022, 0028 and 0030 describing the necking profile and corresponding figures).
Such a circumferential recessed region corresponds to an annular groove formed at a peripheral edge portion of the second portion over the first portion, as the necking profile extends around the entire circumference of the pillar. Further, the curved profile disclosed in the Tsai will necessarily provide an arc-shaped inner surface of the recessed region, which is convex toward the underlying wiring layer, consistent with the claimed geometry when viewed in cross-section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pillar structure of Lu as previously modified to include such an annular groove with a curved inner surface, as taught by the Tsai, in order to reduce stress concentration at the junction, improve mechanical reliability, and enhance adhesion between the portions of the pillar, which are well-known considerations in semiconductor interconnect design (¶0020).
Furthermore, such groove-like recessed profiles are consistent with known fabrication processes (e.g., electroplating and material deposition), which produce non-linear, curved, and recessed transition regions around conductive features.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2011/0260317 to Lu et al. (Lu) in view of US Pub # 2004/0072387 to Hong et al. (Hong) and further in view of US Pub # 2013/0093100 to Shariff t al. (Shariff).
Regarding claim 4, Lu as previously modified disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends. Lu discloses a connection portion (connection portion is formed where the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion are met) between the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion.
Lu fails to discloses wherein a connection portion between the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion is formed into an inclined surface that is inclined with respect to the surface of the first portion in a vertical cross-sectional view.
Shariff discloses wherein a connection portion between the surface of the first portion and a side surface of the second portion is formed into an inclined surface that is inclined with respect to the surface of the first portion in a vertical cross-sectional view (see Fig. 3s with respect to Fig. 3l). see also Examiner’s Mark-up below.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
845
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the first portion and second portion of the pillar layer of Lu with a connection portion as taught by Shariff in order to increase its strength and robustness to reduce cracking and other damage to the interconnect structure during manufacturing processes (¶0060).
Regarding claim 5, Lu discloses wherein the bonding layer (Fig. 7: combinations of 26 and 28) includes a solder layer (solder layer is 28; ¶0022).
Regarding claim 6, Lu discloses wherein the solder layer (28) includes a SnAg layer (¶0022).
Regarding claim 7, Lu discloses wherein the bonding layer (combinations of 26 and 28) includes a barrier layer (26 such as nickel ¶0020) bonded to the pillar layer (22) and a solder layer (28) bonded to an outer surface of the barrier layer (26, see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Lu discloses wherein the barrier layer (26) includes a Ni layer (¶0020), and wherein the solder layer (28) includes a SnAg layer (¶0022).
Regarding claim 9, Lu as previously modified teaches:
The semiconductor device of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above),
Lu as previously modified fail to disclose:
wherein a thickness of the first portion is 4 μm or more and 15 μm or less, and wherein a thickness of the second portion is 35 μm or more and 150 μm or less.
Lu as previously modified teaches an overlapping range for the thickness of the first portion (portion of 18) and the second portion (portion of 22) (¶0015 and 0017) such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05.I). Additionally, as it was known in the art to use a thickness for 18 and 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary, through routine experimentation, thickness in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Lu as previously modified teaches:
The semiconductor device of claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 10 above),
Lu as previously modified fail to disclose:
wherein a diameter of the first portion is 80 μm or more and 400 μm or less, and wherein a diameter of the second portion is 40 μm or more and 300 μm or less.
Hong as previously modified teaches an overlapping range for the diameter of the first portion (portion of 108) and the second portion (portion of 110) (¶0033) such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05.I). Additionally, as it was known in the art to use a diameter for 108 and 110, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary, through routine experimentation, diameter in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed diameter or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 recites:
“ wherein the semiconductor device main body includes: an insulating layer formed over the wiring layer; and a plurality of vias that penetrate the insulating layer and whose one ends are electrically connected to the wiring layer, wherein the electrode terminal includes a seed layer formed over a surface of the insulating layer on an opposite side of the insulating layer from the wiring layer and to which the other end of each of the vias is electrically connected, and wherein the pillar layer is formed over the seed layer.”
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2011/0260317 to Lu et al. (Lu), US Pub # 2004/0072387 to Hong, US Pub # 2014/0077359 to Tsai et al., US Pub # 2013/0093100 to Shariff t al., US Pub # 2010/0264396 to Lung al., US Pub # 2011/0193219 to Lai et al., US Pub # 2011/0101527 to Cheng et al., US Pub # 2008/0157362 to Chang et al., US Pub # 2006/0278984 to Yamada et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896