DETAILED ACTION
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 Group I, Species (b) in the reply filed on 7/02/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden because the search scope of “Invention I and Invention II” covers similar CPC classification such as H10W72. This argument appears to be directed at both the method/device restriction and the species restriction. This is not found persuasive because overlapping classification does not negate the fact that searching the method and device and the mutually exclusive species embodiments requires different fields of search including different classifications, different search strategies, and different search queries. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant stated in the response that claims 1-14 correspond to Group I and elected species (b), the embodiment depicted in Fig. 5B. However, claims 7 and 9 correspond to the embodiment of Fig. 5C, and claim 14 corresponds to the embodiment of Figs. 6A-6C. These claims will be considered withdrawn in addition to claims 15-20 corresponding to Group II.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (U.S. PGPub 2020/0075496) in view of Huang (U.S. PGPub 2024/0395721).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches an electronic device (Fig. 2), comprising:
a chip (202, [0051]),
a redistribution structure electrically connected to the chip, wherein the redistribution structure comprises a metal pad, and the metal pad is disposed opposite to the chip (160, 152, [0056]),
a contact pad disposed on the metal pad (166, [0046]),
a buffer layer disposed on the redistribution structure and comprising an opening (162, [0045]),
a first connection pad disposed on the contact pad and extending in the opening (168, [0051], [0047]),
wherein in a normal direction of the chip, the metal pad, the contact pad and the first connection pad overlap (Fig. 2, [0042]).
Yu does not explicitly teach wherein the opening in the buffer layer exposes at least a portion of the contact pad.
Huang teaches a redistribution structure comprising a metal pad (Fig. 18C, top portion of 112, 108, [0051], [0014]), a contact pad disposed on the metal pad (106, [0049]), a buffer layer disposed on the redistribution structure and comprising an opening exposing at least a portion of the contact pad (104, [0039]), and a first connection pad disposed on the contact pad and extending in the opening (314, [0053]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Huang with Yu such that the opening in the buffer layer exposes at least a portion of the contact pad for the purpose of controlling the thickness of the intermetallic compound (Huang, [0008], [0053]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches wherein the redistribution structure comprises a dielectric layer, the metal pad is disposed in an opening of the dielectric layer, and the top of the metal pad and a top surface of the dielectric layer are coplanar (Yu, 138, 152, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Yu and Huang for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches teaches a second connection pad disposed between the chip and the redistribution structure, wherein the chip is electrically connected to the redistribution structure through the second connection pad (Yu, 230, [0052]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Yu and Huang for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches a first insulating layer disposed between the chip and the redistribution structure (Yu, 232, [0052]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Yu and Huang for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches a second insulating layer surrounding the chip and being in contact with the first insulating layer and the redistribution structure (Yu, 210, [0052]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Yu and Huang for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches an intermediate layer, wherein at least a portion of the intermediate layer is disposed between the contact pad and the first connection pad (Yu, Fig. 18C, 164, [0053]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Yu and Huang for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches wherein a width of the contact pad is greater than or equal to a width of the intermediate layer (Yu, Fig. 18C, 164, [0053]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Yu and Huang for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches wherein a top surface of the contact pad and a top surface of the buffer layer are non-coplanar (Yu, Fig. 18C, 106, 104). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Yu and Huang for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches wherein the top surface of the contact pad is lower than the top surface of the buffer layer (Yu, Fig. 18C, 106, 104). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Yu and Huang for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (U.S. PGPub 2020/0075496) in view of Huang (U.S. PGPub 2024/0395721) and Yu2016 (U.S. PGPub 2016/0056126).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yu and Huang teaches an electronic component adjacent to the chip and being in contact with the second insulating layer ([0051], Fig. 3, [0060]) but does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between the electronic component and the chip is greater than or equal to 1 millimeter. Yu and Huang are silent on the distance between adjacent components.
Yu2016 teaches adjacent electronic components on a redistribution layer in contact with an encapsulating layer (Fig. 1C, 102, 120, 104, [0014]), wherein a distance between the components may be in a range including 3mm, 0.5mm, and 0.1mm ([0025], S1). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Yu and Huang such that the device comprises an electronic component adjacent to the chip and being in contact with the second insulating layer, wherein a distance between the electronic component and the chip is greater than or equal to 1 millimeter for the purpose of choosing an appropriate distance to implement the elements of Yu.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (U.S. PGPub 2020/0075496) in view of Huang (U.S. PGPub 2024/0395721) and Lee (U.S. PGPub 2019/0013276).
Regarding claim 11, Yu does not explicitly teach wherein a surface of the contact pad has a plurality of recesses.
Lee teaches wherein a surface of an under bump metal layer has a plurality of recesses (Fig. 10B, [0082]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Lee with Yu and Huang such that a surface of the contact pad has a plurality of recesses for the purpose of improving connection reliability (Lee, [0082]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights