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 with traverse of claims 1-2, 4-12, 15-19 & 21 in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. The Examiner has agreed with the applicant and has included claims 5, 11-12, 15-19 & 21 for examination. Claims 3 & 13-14 remain withdrawn from consideration as they are directed towards non-elected species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1, 2, 4-12,15-19 & 21 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.
Claim 1 recites “a substrate”, “a pad in the substrate”, “an interconnection pattern in the substrate” and “a solder resist layer on the substrate”. It is unclear what particular structural feature (e.g. in Applicant’s Fig. 1-3) refer to the substrate. The pad 130 is the protection layer 120 and solder resist layer 140 and said limitation raises confusion in terms of positioning of the claim structural features. The drawing refers to the entire structure as the substrate 100 which adds to the ambiguity. Correction/clarification is required.
Claims 12 and 21 contains similar ambiguities with respect to the term “substrate” as in claim 1. The Examiner suggests that applicant identify a specific structural feature as substrate in the drawings.
Claims 2, 4-11,15-19 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1 & 12.
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 1-2, 4 & 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnon et al (US Pub. 2011/0115094) in view of JUNG et al. (KR-10-2008-0020365 – cited in the IDS filed on October 10, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Darnon teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate 12;
a pad 26 on the substrate 12 and connected to an interconnection pattern in the substrate; and
a solder resist layer 18’’ on the substrate 12, the solder resist layer having an opening exposing the pad 26,
a top surface of the pad including
a center region (center of pad 26, Fig. 6); and
a peripheral region surrounding the center region (see Fig. 6 below),
and
a first width of the pad being constant regardless of a distance from the substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
1048
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Darnon is silent on the center region of the top surface of the pad at a level different from the peripheral region of the top surface of the pad. However, JUNG teaches wherein a center region of a top surface of a pad 130 is at a level different from the peripheral region of the top surface of the pad 130. This presents the advantage of accommodating a solder ball within the center region of the pad in the subsequent stages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon with the pad structure, as taught by JUNG, so as to obtain an improved pad/contact structure.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Darnon and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the center region of the top surface of the pad is at a level lower than the peripheral region of the top surface of the pad, and the center region comprises a concave surface that is recessed from the peripheral region (Darnon’s Fig. 6 and JUNG’s Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Darnon and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the center region comprises a flat surface that is stepped with the peripheral region (JUNG’s Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Darnon and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a level difference between the center and peripheral region is 10% to 50% of a thickness of the pad (see JUNG’s Fig. 2). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Darnon and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 6, wherein the level difference between the center and peripheral region ranges from 3 um to 10 um (JUNG teaches a height of about 40 um for the second bump 130 and it is plausible to read that the level difference between the center and the peripheral regions are in the ranges of 3um to 10 um, see Fig. 3b and associated text). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Darnon and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a width of the center region is 30% to 70% of a width of the pad (see JUNG’s Fig. 2). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Darnon and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 8, wherein the width of the center region ranges from 30 um to 50 um (JUNG teaches a height of about 40 um – 60 um for the second bump 130 and in light of said dimension, it is plausible to read that the width of the center region ranges from 30 um to 50 um, see Fig. 3b and associated text). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnon and JUNG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US Pub. 2010/0164116).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Darnon and JUNG is silent on the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the center region has a circular, tetragonal, polygonal, or cross shape, when viewed in a plan view. However, Li teaches a pad structure with that can comprise a circular, tetragonal, or polygonal, when viewed in a plan view (Para 0058]). This presents the advantage of providing a variety different shapes for the pad structure to optimize scaling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon & JUNG with the pad shapes, as taught by Li, so as to obtain an optimize scaling.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnon and Jung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KIM et al. (US Pub. 2016/0007459).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Darnon and JUNG is silent on the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the solder resist layer is spaced apart from a pad. However, KIM teaches a semiconductor device, wherein a solder resist layer 34 is spaced apart from a pad 20 (see Fig. 2 & Fig. 15). This has the advantage of allowing for an improved contact structure to a semiconductor chip. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon and JUNG with the pad structure, as taught by KIM, so as to obtain an improved contact structure.
Regarding claim 11, while the combination of Darnon and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising: a solder portion 140, wherein the solder portion 140 is in contact with an entirety of the center region (see JUNG’s Fig. 2); however, the combination of Darnon and JUNG is silent on a semiconductor chip having a bottom surface, on which a chip pad is provided. However, KIM teaches in Fig. 15 wherein a semiconductor chip 200 having a bottom surface, on which a chip pad 222 is provided. This has the advantage of providing an improved electrical/signal pathways between a lower and upper semiconductor structures. Once incorporated into Darnon and JUNG’s device, the solder portion 140 of JUNG or solder portion 224 of KIM would be positioned between the chip pad 222 and the pad 26/130 (Darnon’s Fig. 6 and JUNG’s Fig. 2) to directly connect the chip pad 222 to the pad (Darnon’s Fig. 6, JUNG’s Fig. 2 and KIM’s Fig. 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon and JUNG with the semiconductor chip 200 and associate chip pad, as taught by KIM, so as to obtain an improved contact structure between an upper and lower semiconductor structures.
Claims 12, 15-17, 19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnon et al, KIM et al. and JUNG et al (cited in the IDS filed on October 10, 2023).
Regarding claim 12, Darnon teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate 12 having a top surface, on which a substrate pad 26 is provided;
a top surface of the substrate pad 26 comprising a first point on a center portion of the substrate pad (center point is in the center portion of the pad 26, Fig. 6); and
a second point adjacent to an edge of the substrate pad (second point is adjacent to the edge of the pad 26, Fig. 6),
Darnon is silent on (i) a semiconductor chip on the substrate, the semiconductor chip having a bottom surface, on which a chip pad is provided; and a solder portion between the substrate pad and the chip pad to directly connect the chip pad to the substrate pad; and (ii) a difference in vertical level between the first and second points being 10% to 50% of a thickness of the substrate pad.
Kim teaches (i) a semiconductor device, wherein a semiconductor chip 200 is positioned on a substrate 10, the semiconductor chip 200 having a bottom surface, on which a chip pad 222 is provided; and a solder portion 224 between a substrate pad 20 and the chip pad 222 to directly connect the chip pad 222 to the substrate pad 20 (see Fig. 15). This has the advantage of providing an improved electrical/signal pathways between a lower and upper semiconductor structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon with the semiconductor chip 200 and associate chip pad 222, as taught by KIM, so as to obtain an improved contact structure between an upper and lower semiconductor structures.
JUNG teaches in Fig. 3 (ii) a semiconductor device comprising a substrate pad 130, wherein a difference in vertical level between a first and second points being 10% to 50% of a thickness of the substrate pad. This presents the advantage of accommodating a solder ball within the center region of the pad 130 in the subsequent stages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon with the pad structure, as taught by JUNG, so as to obtain an improved pad/contact structure.
Regarding claim 15, while the combination of Darnon, KIM and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 12, wherein the top surface of the substrate pad 26/130 has a recessed portion (see JUNG’s Fig. 2), recessed toward an inside of the substrate pad 130, the first point is on the recessed portion, and the second point is between the recessed portion and an outer side surface of the substrate pad (see JUNG’s Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, while the combination of Darnon, KIM and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein a top surface of the recessed portion has a concave surface or flat surface (JUNG’s Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, while the combination of Darnon, KIM and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 12, wherein the top surface of the substrate pad 130 has a center region and a peripheral region, located at different vertical levels from each other, the first point is on the center region, the second point is on the peripheral region, and a width of the center region is 30% to 70% of a width of the substrate pad (see JUNG’s Fig. 2 and Fig. 3b and associated text). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 19, while the combination of Darnon, KIM and JUNG teaches the semiconductor device of claim 12, wherein a width of the substrate pad 26/130 is constant, regardless of a vertical level (Darnon’s Fig. 6 and JUNG’s Fig. 2-3b).
Regarding claim 21, Darnon teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate 12, the substrate 12 comprising a substrate pad 26, on a top surface of the substrate 12, and a solder resist layer 18’’, on the top surface of the substrate 12 and surrounding the substrate pad 26 (Fig. 6);
Darnon is silent on (i) a semiconductor chip, on the substrate and having a chip pad on a bottom surface thereof; a solder portion, between the substrate pad and the chip pad and directly connecting the chip pad to the substrate pad; and the solder resist layer being spaced apart from the substrate pad; and (ii) a top surface of the substrate pad facing the chip pad comprising a curved surface; and a flat surface surrounding the curved surface.
KIM teaches in Fig. 15 a semiconductor device comprising a semiconductor chip 200, on a substrate 10 and having a chip pad 222 on a bottom surface thereof; a solder portion 224, between a substrate pad 20 and the chip pad 222 and directly connecting the chip pad 222 to the substrate pad 20; and a solder resist layer 34 being spaced apart from the substrate pad 20 (see Fig. 19). This has the advantage of providing an improved electrical/signal pathways between a lower and upper semiconductor structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon with the semiconductor chip 200 and associate chip pad 222, as taught by KIM, so as to obtain an improved contact structure between an upper and lower semiconductor structures.
JUNG teaches in Fig. 3 (ii) a semiconductor device, wherein a top surface of a substrate pad 130 facing a chip pad comprise a curved surface; and a flat surface surrounding the curved surface (see JUNG’s Fig. 2, 3b and associated text). This presents the advantage of accommodating a solder ball within the curved surface of the pad 130 in the subsequent stages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon with the pad structure, as taught by JUNG, so as to obtain an improved pad/contact structure.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnon, KIM and JUNG as applied to claims 12 above, and further in view of Li et al.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Darnon, KIM and JUNG is silent on the semiconductor device of claim 17, wherein the center region has a circular, tetragonal, polygonal, or cross shape, when viewed in a plan view. However, Li teaches a pad structure that can comprise a circular, tetragonal, or polygonal, when viewed in a plan view (Para 0058]). This presents the advantage of providing a variety of different shapes for the pad structure to optimize scaling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Darnon & JUNG with the pad shapes, as taught by Li, so as to obtain an optimize scaling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818