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 Invention I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/07/2026.
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, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2024/0096845) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2023/0420412) hereinafter “Tanaka”, Chen et al. (US 2023/0352428) hereinafter “Chen”, Manack et al. (US 2021/0134750) hereinafter “Manack” and in further view of Lakhera et al. (US 2020/0395332) hereinafter “Lakhera”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 1 of Sun teaches a package (Item 100), comprising: a semiconductor die (Item 102) having a device side comprising circuitry formed therein; a planarized passivation layer (Item 136) abutting the device side (Item 112); a horizontal metal member (Item 122) coupled to the device side by way of vias (Item 110) extending through the passivation layer (Item 136); a metal post (Item 118) coupled to and vertically aligned with the horizontal metal member without a sputtered seed layer between the metal post (Item 118) and the horizontal metal member (Item 122); and an underfill layer (Item 134) contacting the metal post (Item 118), the horizontal metal member (Item 122), and the passivation layer (Item 136), wherein the underfill layer (Item 134) is not positioned between the metal post (Item 118) and the horizontal metal member (Item 122).
Sun does not teach where the underfill layer is a polyimide (PI) layer.
Tanaka teaches where a material of the underfill is polyimide (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the underfill layer be polyimide because polyimide is known to have desired insulating properties (Tanaka Paragraph 0066) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Sun does not teach where the horizontal metal member having a thickness ranging between 4 microns and 25 microns.
Chen teaches where a solder material has a thickness between 4 microns and 15 microns (Paragraph 0075).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the horizontal metal member having a thickness ranging between 4 microns and 25 microns because this thickness is suitable for bonding (Chen Paragraph 0075) and “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Sun does not teach where the metal post having a vertical thickness ranging between 10 microns and 80 microns.
Manack teaches where the metal post has a vertical thickness between 40 to 70 microns (Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal post have a vertical thickness ranging between 10 microns and 80 microns because this thickness is suitable for bonding a device to another structure (Manack Paragraph 0016) and “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Sun does not teach where a thickness of a thickest portion of the PI layer ranges between 3 microns and 80 microns.
Lakhera teaches where a common thickness of an underfill material is 50 to 100 microns (Paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of a thickest portion of the PI layer range between 3 microns and 80 microns because this is a commonly recognized thickness of an underfill in the art (Lakhera Paragraph 0027) and “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 1 of Sun further teaches wherein a thickest point of the PI layer (Item 134; when combined with Tanaka which teaches the underfill as polyimide as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above) forms a ring surrounding the metal post (Item 118) that is horizontally spaced from the metal post (Item 118) by a horizontal distance ranging between 0 microns and 30 microns (Where the metal post is spaced from the PI layer by a thin portion of Item 116; See Examiner’s Note below).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand from the figures and specification of Sun that the width of the extended portion of Item 116 along the pillar Item 118 is between 0 and 30 microns as the distance P200 in Fig. 2A is stated as being 60-80 microns (Paragraph 0031) and the thickness of the extended portion of Item 116 is far less than ½, or even 1/3, of P200.
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 1 of Sun further teaches where all of a bottom surface of the metal post (Item 118) contacts the horizontal metal member (Item 122).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2024/0096845) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2023/0420412) hereinafter “Tanaka”, Chen et al. (US 2023/0352428) hereinafter “Chen”, Manack et al. (US 2021/0134750) hereinafter “Manack” and Lakhera et al. (US 2020/0395332) hereinafter “Lakhera” and in further view of Fountain JR. (US 2023/0005850) hereinafter “Fountain”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sun, Tanaka, Chen, Manack and Lakhera teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Sun further teaches where the vias (Items 110) are contact pads (Paragraph 0023).
Sun does not teach where the vias have diameters ranging between 0.5 microns and 10 microns.
Fountain teaches where a contact pad has a diameter of less than 5 microns (Paragraph 0076).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vias have diameters ranging between 0.5 microns and 10 microns because this diameter is known to allow for electrical contact between structures and “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05)
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2024/0096845) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2023/0420412) hereinafter “Tanaka” and Chen et al. (US 2023/0352428) hereinafter “Chen” and in further view of Manack et al. (US 2021/0134750) hereinafter “Manack”.
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 1 of Sun teaches a package (Item 100), comprising: a semiconductor die (Item 102) having a device side comprising circuitry formed therein; a planarized passivation layer (Item 136) abutting the device side (Item 112); a horizontal metal member (Item 122) coupled to the device side by way of vias (Item 110) extending through the passivation layer (Item 136); a metal post (Item 118) coupled to and vertically aligned with the horizontal metal member without a sputtered seed layer between the metal post (Item 118) and the horizontal metal member (Item 122); and an underfill layer (Item 134) contacting the metal post (Item 118), the horizontal metal member (Item 122), and the passivation layer (Item 136), wherein a thickest point of the underfill layer (Item 134) forms a ring surrounding the metal post (Item 118) that is horizontally spaced from the metal post (Item 118) by a horizontal distance ranging between 0 microns and 30 microns (Where the metal post is spaced from the PI layer by a thin portion of Item 116; See Examiner’s Note below)
Sun does not teach where the underfill layer is a polyimide (PI) layer.
Tanaka teaches where a material of the underfill is polyimide (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the underfill layer be polyimide because polyimide is known to have desired insulating properties (Tanaka Paragraph 0066) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Sun does not teach where the horizontal metal member having a thickness ranging between 4 microns and 25 microns.
Chen teaches where a solder material has a thickness between 4 microns and 15 microns (Paragraph 0075).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the horizontal metal member having a thickness ranging between 4 microns and 25 microns because this thickness is suitable for bonding (Chen Paragraph 0075) and “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Sun does not teach where the metal post having a vertical thickness ranging between 10 microns and 80 microns.
Manack teaches where the metal post has a vertical thickness between 40 to 70 microns (Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal post have a vertical thickness ranging between 10 microns and 80 microns because this thickness is suitable for bonding a device to another structure (Manack Paragraph 0016) and “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand from the figures and specification of Sun that the width of the extended portion of Item 116 along the pillar Item 118 is between 0 and 30 microns as the distance P200 in Fig. 2A is stated as being 60-80 microns (Paragraph 0031) and the thickness of the extended portion of Item 116 is far less than ½, or even 1/3, of P200.
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 1 of Sun further teaches where all of a bottom surface of the metal post (Item 118) contacts the horizontal metal member (Item 122).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2024/0096845) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2023/0420412) hereinafter “Tanaka”, Chen et al. (US 2023/0352428) hereinafter “Chen”, Manack et al. (US 2021/0134750) hereinafter “Manack” and in further view of Lakhera et al. (US 2020/0395332) hereinafter “Lakhera”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sun, Tanaka, Chen and Manack teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness point of the PI layer has a thickness ranging between 3 microns and 80 microns.
Lakhera teaches where a common thickness of an underfill material is 50 to 100 microns (Paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness point of the PI layer have a thickness ranging between 3 microns and 80 microns because this is a commonly recognized thickness of an underfill in the art (Lakhera Paragraph 0027) and “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2024/0096845) hereinafter “Sun” in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2023/0420412) hereinafter “Tanaka”, Chen et al. (US 2023/0352428) hereinafter “Chen”, Manack et al. (US 2021/0134750) hereinafter “Manack” and in further view of Fountain JR. (US 2023/0005850) hereinafter “Fountain”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sun, Tanaka, Chen and Manack teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Sun further teaches where the vias (Items 110) are contact pads (Paragraph 0023).
Sun does not teach where the vias have diameters ranging between 0.5 microns and 10 microns.
Fountain teaches where a contact pad has a diameter of less than 5 microns (Paragraph 0076).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vias have diameters ranging between 0.5 microns and 10 microns because this diameter is known to allow for electrical contact between structures and “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8 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:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have a second downward slope extending from the peak away and from the metal post along with the other limitations in claim 3 and claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have a second downward slope extending from the peak away and from the metal post along with the other limitations in claim 8 and claim 6.
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have a downward slope extending from the peak in a direction away from the metal post along with the other limitations in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights