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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I / Sub-species I and Claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) from PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
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 4, 11 and 17 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.
Claims 4, 11 and 17 recite the limitation wherein, “the alcohol solution comprises about 40 % to about 60 % of alcohol.” It is the unclear if the percentage of alcohol in the solution is calculated with respect to atomic weight or volume. Hence the claims are indefinite and rejected.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0375829 A1), and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2006/0063308 A1).
Re Claim 1, Hwang teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising:
forming a conductive layer (351, Fig. 9C, para [0124]) on a first redistribution substrate (100, Fig. 9C, para [0124]);
forming, on the conductive layer (351), a resist film (810P, Fig. 9D, para [0125]) having an opening (819P, Fig. 9D, para [0125]), wherein the opening extends through the resist film (810P);
forming a conductive post (310, Fig. 9F, para [0047]) in the opening (819P).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the following:
the opening exposes an organic residue, and wherein an oxide film is provided between the conductive layer and the organic residue.
wherein the oxide film is provided on the conductive layer, and the oxide film and the conductive layer comprise a same metal material.
However, Hwang discloses that the conductive seed layer (351, Fig. 9E) can be made of copper, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that during the formation of the hole (819P, Fig. 9D), the seed copper layer will be exposed to atmosphere forming a native copper oxide layer on top of the seed layer. Hence, the oxide film and the conductive layer will comprise the same metal material.
Furthermore, Hwang discloses that the resist film 810P is made of an organic material like a polymer (para [0125]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that during the formation of the hole (819P, Fig. 9D), residue from the organic layer will inadvertently fall into the bottom of the opening forming organic residues on portions of the native copper oxide layer, such that the oxide layer is between the conductive seed layer and the organic residues.
Hwang also does not explicitly disclose the following:
removing the organic residue by adding an alcohol solution into the opening;
removing the oxide film by adding an acid solution into the opening;
However, in a related semiconductor art, Shim teaches a cleaning process involving a dual damascene structure where the first solution made of organic solvents like ethanol is used for removing residues from the photoresist (paras [0020] and [0029]), and a second solution comprises an acid solution like HF solution with an additive like acetic acid which helps in removing the native oxide layer (paras [0020], [0029] and [0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Hwang by incorporating the known processes of removing organic residues and native oxides as taught by Shim. The selection of known processes of removing organic residues and native oxides for its known purpose of cleaning an opening before forming a conductive via structure is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Re Claim 2, Hwang modified by Shim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the organic residue and the resist film comprise a same material (the organic reside comprises the same organic polymer that the resist film is made of, see claim 1 above).
Re Claim 3, Hwang modified by Shim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the acid solution comprises a weak acid, and a pKa of the weak acid is 2.58 or greater (the acid solution comprises acetic acid, Shim, see claim 1 above, where acetic acid has a pKa of 4.76 at 25°C).
Re Claim 6, Hwang modified by Shim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the removing of the oxide film (see claim 1 above) comprises exposing a top surface of the conductive layer (top surface of 351, Fig. 9E, Hwang), and
wherein the conductive post (310, Fig. 9F) is formed on the top surface of the conductive layer (351, Fig. 9F) that has been exposed.
Re Claim 7, Hwang modified by Shim teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the forming of the conductive post (310, Fig. 9F, Hwang) comprises performing a plating process in the opening and on the top surface of the conductive layer that has been exposed (310 is formed by electroplating, para [0127], Hwang).
Re Claim 8, Hwang modified by Shim teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
mounting, on the first redistribution substrate (100, Fig. 9D, Hwang), a semiconductor chip (200, Fig. 9L, para [0041], Hwang) that is laterally spaced apart from the conductive post (310, Fig. 9L); and
forming a second redistribution substrate (600, Fig. 9O, para [0056]) on the conductive layer (350, Fig. 9O, note that 350 is the patterned seed layer 351, para [0134], compare Figs. 9J and 9K), wherein the second redistribution substrate (600) is electrically connected to the conductive post (310, Fig. 9O).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0375829 A1) and Shim et al. (US 2006/0063308 A1), and further in view of Rothwell et al. (US 2009/0029543 A1).
Re Claim 4, Hwang modified by Shim teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the alcohol solution comprises about 40 % to about 60 % of alcohol.
Related art, Rothwell discloses that the alcohol solution used for cleaning organic residues comprises about 50 to about 100 weight percent alcohol (para [0044]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Hwang and Shim by incorporating a known concentration of alcohol solution for cleaning organic residues as taught by Rothwell. The selection of a known concentration of alcohol solution for its known purpose of cleaning organic residues is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0375829 A1) and Shim et al. (US 2006/0063308 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2004/0244823 A1).
Re Claim 5, Hwang modified by Shim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the alcohol solution comprises ethanol (alcohol solution can be ethanol, Shim, paras [0020] and [0029], also see claim 1 above).
Hwang modified by Shim does not disclose that the acid solution comprises citric acid. Shim discloses that the acid solution is a combination of HF solution and acetic acid, which helps in removing the native oxide layer (paras [0020], [0029] and [0032], see claim 1 above).
Related art, Kim teaches that the acid solution for removing oxide layer comprises one selected from a group of citric acid, acetic acid, tartaric acid, succinic acid, malic acid, aspartic acid, glutaric acid, adipic acid, suberic acid, oxalic acid, fumaric acid, and one selected from a group consisting of hydrofluoric acid, hydroboron tetrafluoric acid, ammonium fluoride and any combination thereof (see Claim 25, Kim).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the acid solution of Shim, such that the acetic acid is substituted by citric acid, as taught by Kim. The substitution of a known material for its known purpose in aiding in removal of native oxide layer is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0375829 A1), and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2006/0063308 A1) and Molloy et al. (US 5849639 A).
Re Claim 9, Hwang teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising:
forming a conductive seed layer (351, Fig. 9C, para [0124]) on a redistribution substrate (100, Fig. 9C, para [0124]);
forming a resist film (810P, Fig. 9D, para [0125]) on the conductive seed layer (351);
forming an opening (819P, Fig. 9D, para [0125]) extending through the resist film (810P);
forming a conductive structure (310, Fig. 9F, para [0047]) in the opening (819P),
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the following:
the opening exposes an organic residue, and wherein an oxide film is provided between the conductive seed layer and the organic residue.
However, Hwang discloses that the conductive seed layer (351, Fig. 9E) can be made of copper, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that during the formation of the hole (819P, Fig. 9D), the seed copper layer will be exposed to atmosphere forming a native copper oxide layer on top of the seed layer.
Furthermore, Hwang discloses that the resist film 810P is made of an organic material like a polymer (para [0125]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that during the formation of the hole (819P, Fig. 9D), residue from the organic layer will inadvertently fall into the bottom of the opening forming organic residues on portions of the native copper oxide layer, such that the oxide layer is between the conductive seed layer and the organic residues.
Hwang also does not explicitly disclose the following:
performing a pre-processing process in the opening, wherein the performing of the pre-processing process comprises:
performing a first pre-processing process to remove the organic residue;
performing a second pre-processing process, after the first pre-processing process, to remove the oxide film.
However, in a related semiconductor art, Shim teaches a pre-processing process involving a dual damascene structure where a first pre-processing process includes a first solution made of organic solvents like ethanol which is used for removing residues from the photoresist (paras [0020] and [0029]), and a second pre-processing process which includes a second solution comprising of an acid solution like HF solution with an additive like acetic acid which helps in removing the native oxide layer (paras [0020], [0029] and [0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Hwang by incorporating the known pre-processing steps of removing organic residues and native oxides as taught by Shim. The selection of known pre-processing steps of removing organic residues and native oxides for its known purpose of cleaning an opening before forming a conductive via structure is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Hwang modified by Shim does not explicitly disclose that the second pre-processing step of removing the oxide film is performed after the first pre-processing step of removal of organic residue.
Shim discloses that both the alcohol solution (for the first pre-processing step for removal of organic residue) and the acid solution (for the second pre-processing step for oxide removal) are added at the same time as a mixture (paras [0020] and [0029]). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that there is an implicit sequence of the pre-processing steps, where the organic residues has to be cleaned first by dissolving them in the alcohol solution in the first pre-processing step, before the acid solution of the second pre-processing step can completely clean the native oxide layer underneath.
Alternatively, related art Malloy explicitly teaches a pre-processing step for cleaning which includes a first pre-processing step of cleaning the organic photoresist residues using an alcohol solution followed by a second pre-processing step for cleaning the oxidized layers (Col 2, lines 16-31). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to incorporate the explicit sequence of pre-processing steps of Malloy into the method of Shim, such that instead of using a cleaning solution mixture of organic solvents and acid solutions (as described by Shim), the first pre-processing step can only include an alcohol solution to remove the organic residue on top of the oxidized layer, followed by a second pre-processing step of removing the oxidized layer using an acid solution.
Re Claim 10, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the first pre-processing process is performed using an alcohol solution (first pre-processing process includes an alcohol solution for removing organic residues, see claim 9 above), and
wherein the second pre-processing process is performed using an acid solution (second pre-processing process includes an acid solution for removing native oxide layer, see claim 9 above).
Re Claim 12, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 9,
wherein the oxide film is formed on a portion of the conductive seed layer (native copper oxide layer will be formed on top of the copper seed layer 351, Hwang, see claim 9 above),
wherein the oxide film comprises a first portion and a second portion (1st and 2nd portions of copper oxide film, which will be defined below, later in this claim),
wherein the opening vertically overlaps the first portion and the second portion of the oxide film (opening 819P, Fig. 9D, overlaps with copper seed layer 351, and hence will overlap with all the portions of the copper oxide layer),
wherein the organic residue is formed on the first portion of the oxide film while the opening is formed (organic residue is formed during the formation of the opening, and portions of the copper oxide film will be covered by the organic residue, see claim 9 above, and the 1st portion of the copper oxide film can be defined where the organic residue has been deposited on),
wherein the organic residue is separated from a top surface of the second portion of the oxide film (2nd portion of the copper oxide film can be defined where no organic residue was deposited on during the formation of the opening), and
wherein, before the pre-processing process, the opening exposes the top surface of the second portion of the oxide film (since no organic residue was deposited on the 2nd portion of the copper oxide layer, the top surface of the 2nd portion will be exposed to the opening) and exposes the organic residue (top surface of organic residue will be exposed to the opening).
Re Claim 13, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the performing of the first pre-processing process comprises exposing a top surface of the first portion of the oxide film (first pre-processing process comprises an alcohol solution for removal of organic residues, resulting in exposing the top surface of the 1st portion of the native copper oxide film underneath, see claims 9 and 12 above), and
wherein the performing of the second pre-processing process comprises exposing a top surface of the portion of the conductive seed layer (second pre-processing process comprises an acid solution for removal of native copper oxide layer, resulting in exposing the top surface of copper seed layer underneath, see claims 9 and 12 above).
Re Claim 14, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising:
performing, after the first pre-processing process, a first cleaning process on the top surface of the first portion of the oxide film that has been exposed (first pre-processing process comprises an alcohol solution which cleans and removes the organic residues by dissolving them, resulting in exposing the top surface of the 1st portion of the native copper oxide film underneath, see claims 9 and 12 above); and
performing, after the second pre-processing process, a second cleaning process on the top surface of the portion of the conductive seed layer that has been exposed (second pre-processing process comprises an acid solution which cleans and removes the native copper oxide layer by dissolving them, resulting in exposing the top surface of copper seed layer underneath, see claims 9 and 12 above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0375829 A1), Shim et al. (US 2006/0063308 A1) and Molloy et al. (US 5849639 A), and further in view of Rothwell et al. (US 2009/0029543 A1).
Re Claim 11, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the acid solution comprises a weak acid having a pKa of 2.58 or greater (the acid solution comprises acetic acid, Shim, see claim 9 above, where acetic acid has a pKa of 4.76 at 25°C).
Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy does not disclose that the alcohol solution comprises about 40 % to about 60 % of alcohol.
Related art, Rothwell discloses that the alcohol solution used for cleaning organic residues comprises about 50 to about 100 weight percent alcohol (para [0044]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Hwang and Shim by incorporating a known concentration of alcohol solution for cleaning organic residues as taught by Rothwell. The selection of a known concentration of alcohol solution for its known purpose of cleaning organic residues is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0375829 A1), Shim et al. (US 2006/0063308 A1) and Molloy et al. (US 5849639 A), and further in view of Rothwell et al. (US 2009/0029543 A1) and Oreozeo-teran et al. (US 2016/0099158 A1).
Re Claim 15, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 13, but does not disclose the following:
the first pre-processing process is performed for about thirty seconds to about ninety seconds, and
wherein the second pre-processing process is performed for about thirty seconds to about ninety seconds.
Related semiconductor art, Rothwell discloses that an alcohol solution can be used for cleaning organic residues by treating it for about 60 to 300 seconds (para [0044]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the first pre-processing process comprising an alcohol solution for removing the organic residues, in the method of Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy by incorporating a known processing time between 60 to 300 seconds, as disclosed by Rothwell. The selection of a known processing time for the first pre-processing process for its known purpose of removing the organic residues is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In another related semiconductor art, Oreozeo-teran discloses that the native oxide can be removed using a HF/citric acid solution by exposing it for about 5 to 120 seconds (para [0036]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the second pre-processing process comprising an acid solution for removing the native copper oxide layer, in the method of Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy by incorporating a known processing time between 5 to 120 seconds, as disclosed by Oreozeo-teran. The selection of a known processing time for the second pre-processing process for its known purpose of removing the native oxide layer is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0375829 A1), and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2006/0063308 A1) and Molloy et al. (US 5849639 A).
Re Claim 16, Hwang teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising:
forming a first redistribution substrate (100, Fig. 9C, para [0124]) comprising a first insulating layer (101, Fig. 9C, para [0123]), a first seed pattern (135, Fig. 9C, para [0123]), a first redistribution pattern (130, Fig. 9C, para [0123]) on the first seed pattern (135), and a first redistribution pad (150, Fig. 9C, para [0123]) on the first redistribution pattern (130);
forming a conductive seed layer (351, Fig. 9C, para [0124]) on the first insulating layer (101) and the first redistribution pad (150);
forming a resist film (810P, Fig. 9D, para [0125]) on the conductive seed layer (351);
forming an opening in the resist film (819P, Fig. 9D, para [0125])
forming a conductive post (310, Fig. 9F, para [0047]) by performing a plating process in the opening (310 is formed by electroplating, para [0127]),
wherein the opening (819P) vertically overlaps a portion of the conductive seed layer (315, see Fig. 9D),
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the opening exposes at least one of an oxide film or an organic residue;
wherein the oxide film is formed on the portion of the conductive seed layer, and the oxide film and the conductive seed layer comprise a same metal material,
wherein the organic residue is formed on a first portion of the oxide film while the opening is formed,
wherein the organic residue and the resist film comprise a same material,
However, Hwang discloses that the conductive seed layer (351, Fig. 9E) can be made of copper, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that during the formation of the hole (819P, Fig. 9D), the seed copper layer will be exposed to atmosphere forming a native copper oxide layer on top of the seed copper layer. The oxide film and the conductive layer will comprise the same metal material like copper, and the native oxide film formed on the seed layer will be exposed to the opening.
Furthermore, Hwang discloses that the resist film 810P is made of an organic material like a polymer (para [0125]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that during the formation of the hole (819P, Fig. 9D), residue from the organic layer will inadvertently fall into the bottom of the opening forming organic residues (having the same material as the resist film) deposited on portions of the native copper oxide layer.
Hwang also does not explicitly disclose the following:
removing the organic residue by performing a first pre-processing process in the opening, wherein an alcohol solution is used in the first pre-processing process;
removing the oxide film by performing a second pre-processing process in the opening, wherein an acid solution is used in the second pre-processing process;
However, in a related semiconductor art, Shim teaches a pre-processing process involving a dual damascene structure where a first pre-processing process includes a first solution made of organic solvents like ethanol which is used for removing residues from the photoresist (paras [0020] and [0029]), and a second pre-processing process which includes a second solution comprising of an acid solution like HF solution with an additive like acetic acid which helps in removing the native oxide layer (paras [0020], [0029] and [0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Hwang by incorporating the known pre-processing steps of removing organic residues and native oxides as taught by Shim. The selection of known pre-processing steps of removing organic residues and native oxides for its known purpose of cleaning an opening before forming a conductive via structure is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Hwang modified by Shim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first pre-processing process is performed before the second pre-processing process, and
wherein the second pre-processing process is performed before the plating process.
Shim discloses that both the alcohol solution (for the first pre-processing step for removal of organic residue) and the acid solution (for the second pre-processing step for oxide removal) are added at the same time as a mixture (paras [0020] and [0029]). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that there is an implicit sequence of the pre-processing steps, where the organic residues has to be cleaned first by dissolving them in the alcohol solution in the first pre-processing step, before the acid solution of the second pre-processing step can completely clean the native oxide layer underneath.
Alternatively, related art Malloy explicitly teaches a pre-processing step for cleaning which includes a first pre-processing step of cleaning the organic photoresist residues using an alcohol solution followed by a second pre-processing step for cleaning the oxidized layers (Col 2, lines 16-31). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to incorporate the sequence of pre-processing steps of Malloy into the method of Shim, such that instead of using a cleaning solution mixture of organic solvents and acid solutions (as described by Shim), the first pre-processing step can only include an alcohol solution to remove the organic residue on top of the oxidized layer, followed by a second pre-processing step of removing the oxidized layer using an acid solution.
Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to form the plating process for the formation of the conductive structure (310, Fig. 9F, para [0047], Hwang) after all the pre-processing steps have been performed, such that there are no contaminants left in the opening, which can impede the electrical conductivity between the conductive structure and the redistribution substrate (100, Fig. 9F).
Re Claim 18, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the forming of the opening (819P, Fig. 9D, para [0125], Hwang) comprises removing a portion of the resist film (810P, Fig. 9D, para [0125]) by performing a process of exposure and development of the resist film (810P may be patterned by exposure and development processes, para [0125]).
Re Claim 19, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising forming a second redistribution substrate (600, Fig. 9O, para [0056], Hwang) on the conductive post (310),
wherein the second redistribution substrate (600, Fig. 9O) comprises a second insulating layer (601, Fig. 9O, para [0139]), a second seed pattern (635, Fig. 9O, para [0139]), and a second redistribution pattern (630, Fig. 9O, para [0139]) on the second seed pattern (635), and wherein
the second redistribution pattern (630) is electrically connected to the conductive post (310, see Fig. 9O).
Re Claim 20, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
mounting, on the first redistribution substrate (100, Fig. 9O, Hwang), a semiconductor chip (200, Fig. 9O, para [0041]) that is laterally spaced apart from the conductive post (310, see Fig. 9O); and
forming, on the first redistribution substrate (100, Fig. 9O, Hwang), a molding film (400, Fig. 9O, para [0138]) covering a side surface of the conductive post (310) and the semiconductor chip (200).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0375829 A1), Shim et al. (US 2006/0063308 A1) and Molloy et al. (US 5849639 A), and further in view of Rothwell et al. (US 2009/0029543 A1), Kim et al. (US 2004/0244823 A1) and Oreozeo-teran et al. (US 2016/0099158 A1).
Re Claim 17, Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy teaches the method of claim 16, but does not disclose the following:
the alcohol solution comprises about 40 % to about 60 % of ethanol, and
wherein the acid solution comprises citric acid having a molar concentration of about 0.1 M to about 5 M.
Related art, Rothwell discloses that the alcohol solution used for cleaning organic residues comprises about 50 to about 100 weight percent alcohol (para [0044]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy by incorporating a known concentration of alcohol solution for cleaning organic residues as taught by Rothwell. The selection of a known concentration of alcohol solution for its known purpose of cleaning organic residues is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Hwang modified by Shim and Malloy does not disclose and the acid solution comprises citric acid. Shim discloses that the acid solution is a combination of HF solution and acetic acid, which helps in removing the native oxide layer (paras [0020], [0029] and [0032], see claim 16 above).
Related art, Kim teaches that the acid solution for removing oxide layer comprises one selected from a group of citric acid, acetic acid, tartaric acid, succinic acid, malic acid, aspartic acid, glutaric acid, adipic acid, suberic acid, oxalic acid, fumaric acid, and one selected from a group consisting of hydrofluoric acid, hydroboron tetrafluoric acid, ammonium fluoride and any combination thereof (see Claim 25, Kim).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the acid solution of Shim, such that the acetic acid is substituted by citric acid, as taught by Kim. The substitution of a known material for its known purpose in aiding in removal of native oxide layer is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Furthermore, related art Oreozeo-teran teaches a HF/citric acid solution for removing native oxide layer where the citric concentration can range between 0.5 % to 5 % (para [0036]), which results in molar concentration range of 0.03 M to 0.3 M, overlapping the claimed range (An example calculation is shown, 5% acid solution means 5 gm of acid per 100 mL of liquid, molar weight of citric acid is 192.12 g/mol, molar concentration = (5 × 10) / 192.12 = 0.26, which is approximately 0.3 M)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the method of Hwang modified by Shim, Malloy and Kim by incorporating a known concentration of citric acid solution for removing native oxide layer as taught by Oreozeo-teran. The selection of a known concentration of citric acid solution for its known purpose of removing native oxide layer is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights