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 the invention of group I in the reply filed on February 23, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 4 – 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 23, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. teach an electronic system (Figs. 10 – 13) comprises microelectronic components in the form of:
one or more input devices (¶ [0006]);
one or more output devices (¶ [006], chip scale packages such as camcorders, mobile phones, laptop computers inherently including input and output devices);
one or more microprocessor devices (¶ [0006]);
one or more memory devices (¶ [0006]); and
at least one substrate (100) on which at least some of the one or more input devices, output devices, microprocessor devices or memory devices are mounted, the at least one substrate having terminal pads (400) integral with and of a same thickness of associated conductive traces (300) and respectively configured with an irregular surface topography comprising:
at least one protruding portion (420) of a same thickness as a thickness of a respectively associated conductive trace; and
at least one recess portion (440) extending at least to a depth proximate a dielectric material (200).
The article “The Efficiency and Features of Memory Card” teaches, in paragraph 2: “Memory cards are compact, removable, non-volatile flash storage devices used to store and transfer photos, videos, documents, applications, and system data across cameras, smartphones, computers, and embedded devices.” The examiner notes that, in order to “. . .store and transfer photos, documents applications and system data . . .,” input devices are necessary and required to bring this data to the storage site, output devices are necessary and required to export (“transfer”) this data to outside devices, and memory devices are necessary and required to store this data. Further, paragraph 2 of the subsection “How does a memory card work?” states: “Inside the chip, it is engineered with a circuit system that works as the memory storage and processes data with high efficiency and a couple of transistors that maintains data path.” The examiner notes that this teaches that a memory card necessarily possesses microprocessor devices. The examiner notes that, if any of the above components are not in a device, then this device is definitionally not a storage card device, meaning all of these components must be in a storage card device are therefore inherent to storage card devices. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 22, Yang further teaches a solder ball 600 bonded to the terminal pads, extending into the at least one recess portion of respective ones of the terminal pads.
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 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20070132108 A1) in view of Heo (US 20200020638 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches, in FIG. 14 a microelectronic component assembly (“chip” 34), comprising: a first microelectronic component (see [0049]: “an integrated circuit (IC) (not illustrated for simplicity) is formed on a semiconductor substrate such as a silicon substrate 32”) having first terminal pads (“ball pads” 43) on a surface thereof, the first terminal pads having an irregular surface topography (see FIG. 12 for an overhead view of surface topography) and comprising: at least one protruding portion (see annotated FIG. 14 below); and at least one recessed portion (see annotated FIG. 14 below), which is a blind recess that terminates at a floor within the thickness of the terminal pads; conductive traces (41) associated with the first terminal pads, the conductive traces individually being integral with, having a same material composition as, and having a same thickness as the at least one protruding portion of the first terminal pads (see FIG. 15); and solder balls (60) bonded to the first terminal pads and extending into the at least one recess portion of respective ones of the first terminal pads.
Lee does not explicitly teach a plurality of solder balls and terminal pads, or a second microelectronic component operably coupled to the first microelectronic component.
Heo teaches, in FIG. 15, a microelectronic component assembly comprising a chip stack (124d, 123d, 122d, and 121d, each of which have at least one microelectronic component), [0088] states: “The electrical connection structure 190 may be a structure for physically and/or electrically connecting the semiconductor package 100A to an external source. For example, the semiconductor package 100A may be mounted on the main board of the electronic device”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Lee such that the microelectronic component assembly comprises a plurality of terminal pads, and solder bumps, and such that the first microelectronic component is operably connected to a second microelectronic component, as taught by Lee. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this allows for more microelectronic components to be used in conjunction with one another (such as to other components on a “main board of [an] electronic device” taught by Heo above), increasing economic viability. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 2. Lee further teaches, in FIG. 21, a depth of a recess (the middle recess) which is 100% of the thickness of the terminal pad. The examiner notes that this is true because it is the recess, in this case, defines the bottom-most (thickest) portion of the pad, and therefore the recess is 100% of the thickness of the pad.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Lee such that a depth of one of the recesses is 100% of the thickness of the terminal pad. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, increase the surface area of contact between the pad and the solder bump, increasing device reliability (see bottom of abstract, Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further teaches, in FIG. 14, that a portion of the bottom thickness of the terminal pads remains beneath the floor of the blind recess.
While Lee does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the terminal pad that remains is between about 10% and 20% of the total thickness of the terminal pad, the resistance of the conductive trace 41 which lines the bottom of the terminal pad determines the resistance thereof when a charge flows through the trace from the right side of the conductive trace, as it appears in FIG. 14, to the left side, as it appears in FIG. 14, where it flows into the microelectronic component via the pad 160, it must flow into the remaining area of the conductive trace beneath the blind recess. It is very well known in the art that the resistance of a conductive trace is directly proportional to the area of the wire, as a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Lee such that between about 10 to 20% of the thickness of the terminal pad remains at the floor at beneath the blind recess through routine experimentation, to balance the benefits of an increased surface area of contact (see benefit taught by Lee at the bottom of abstract) and to ensure that not too-much resistance is introduced as a consequence of the blind recess, as is very well known in the art.
Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20080061436 A1) in view of Kimura (US 20180374529 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches, in FIG. 13, a microelectronic component assembly, [0006] teaches “The chip scale package is mainly used in products, such . . . memory cards.” FIG. 13 further teaches at least one substrate (100), the at least one substrate having terminal pads (400) integral with and of a same thickness of associated conductive traces (300) and respectively configured with an irregular surface topography comprising: at least one protruding portion (420) of a same thickness as a thickness of a respectively associated conductive trace; and at least one recess portion (440) extending at least to a depth proximate a dielectric material (200).
While Yang teaches that a microelectronic component assembly for use in a memory card, Yang does not explicitly teach one or more input, output, microprocessor, and memory devices.
Kimura teaches, in [0256], under the heading Embodiment 5: “The memory device of the foregoing embodiment can be used for removable memory devices such as memory cards (e.g., SD cards) . . .” Kimura further teaches, in [0258] and FIG. 32B: “An SD card 5110 includes . . . a connector 5112, and a substrate 5113. The connector 5112 functions as an interface for connection to an external device . . .The substrate 5113 is provided with a memory device and a circuit for driving the memory device. For example, the substrate 5113 is provided with a memory chip 5114 and a controller chip 5115. The memory cell array 2610, the word line driver circuit 2622, the row decoder 2621, the sense amplifier 2633, the precharge circuit 2632, the column decoder 2631, and the like, which are described in Embodiment 2, are incorporated into the memory chip 5114. A processor, a work memory, an ECC circuit, and the like are incorporated into the controller chip 5115 . . .” The examiner notes that this teaches one or more input devices, one or more output devices, one or more microprocessors, and one or more memory devices, at least one of which is on a substrate, for use in a memory card.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Yang such that the device comprises one or more input devices, one or more output devices, one or more microprocessor devices, and one or more memory devices, at least one of which is on a substrate, as taught by Kimura. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, Yang teaches the use of the above described device in a memory card, and Kimura teaches these components in an operable memory card, thus enabling an operable, commercially viable device. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 22, Yang further teaches, in FIG. 13, a solder ball 600 bonded to the terminal pads, extending into the at least one recess portion of respective ones of the terminal pads.
Claims 13-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20070132108 A1) in view of Tsai (US 20170345785 A1).
Regarding claim 13, as explained above, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lee further teaches a peripheral protruding portion (see FIG. 12).
Lee does not teach multiple mutually spaced protruding portions configured as pillars.
Tsai teaches, in FIG. 7, solder bumps 42 connected to pads (“openings” 28) in which are multiple mutually spaced protruding portions configured as pillars (26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Lee such that the pad portion further comprises multiple mutually spaced protruding portions configured as pillars. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this allows for even more surface area for the connection of the solder bump, increasing connection reliability (see bottom of Abstract, Lee).
Regarding claim 14, Lee does not teach multiple, mutually space protruding portions that are horizontally surrounded by the peripheral protruding portion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the microelectronic component assembly of Lee with multiple, mutually space protruding portions that are horizontally surrounded by the peripheral protruding portion. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this to be one of several straightforward ways of increasing connection reliability because it increases surface area.
In addition, Applicant has not disclosed that multiple mutually space protruding portions being horizontally surrounded by the peripheral protruding portion provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of increasing connection reliability (as taught by Lee above).
Regarding claim 15, Tsai further teaches, in FIG. 7, recesses (at least one recess portion) horizontally interposed between at least some of the multiple, mutually spaced protruding portions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to further modify the device taught by Lee such that there is at least one recess) horizontally interposed between at least some of the multiple, mutually spaced protruding portions. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this allows the multiple recessed portions to be mutually spaced (spaced by the recess(es)), allowing for an increase in surface area, increasing reliability, as taught by Lee above.
Regarding claim 21, Lee further teaches that the conductive trace forms part of the terminal pad, therefore they both comprise a single metal material. The examiner notes that [0055] refers to the conductive trace as a “the metal wiring layer 41,” and therefore that the conductive trace comprises a metal.
Claims 18-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20080061436) in view of Kimura (US 20180374529 A1) in further view of Lee (US 20070132108 A1).
Regarding claim 18, as explained above, Yang teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Lee teaches, in FIG. 14, blind recesses in a pad portion (see above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Yang such that the irregular surface topography of respective ones of the terminal pads comprises at least one blind recess portion, as taught by Lee. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this increases the surface area of contact between the solder bump and the conductive trace, increasing device reliability (see bottom of abstract, Lee).
Regarding claim 19, Lee further teaches, in FIGs 12 and 14, that the at least one protruding portion of the irregular surface topography (see above) of respective ones of the terminal pads comprises a peripheral protruding portion and at least one additional protruding portion substantially horizontally surrounded by the peripheral protruding portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Yang such that at least one protruding portion of the irregular surface topography (see above) of respective ones of the terminal pads comprises a peripheral protruding portion and at least one additional protruding portion substantially horizontally surrounded by the peripheral protruding portion. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this increases surface area of contact and therefore increases device reliability (see bottom of abstract, Lee).
Regarding claim 23, Lee further teaches that a conductive trace that comprises a same single metal material as a terminal pad (see above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Yang such that the terminal pads and the associated conductive traces comprise a single metal material. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, decrease the number of manufacturing steps (as the conductive trace and terminal pad can be formed at the same time, if they comprise the same metal material), decreasing manufacturing cost. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Amendments to claims 1, 2, and 12-15 to overcome objections are acknowledged and accepted.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 regarding claim 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As evidenced above by “The Efficiency and Features of Memory Card” the “memory chip,” for example, which is disclosed by Yang, necessarily contains one or more input devices (required at least for a write operation, a necessary functionality of a memory card), one or more output devices (required at least for a read operation, a necessary functionality of a memory card), microprocessor devices (required at least for storage management, a necessary functionality of a memory card), one or more memory devices (required at least for memory storage, a necessary functionality of a memory card), and at least one substrate (taught by Yang above, note that any one of the above mentioned components must be “on” this substrate; the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “on” does not require continuous physical contact between the substrate and the above devices). Therefore, for at least the “memory card” taught by Yang above, all of the one or more input devices, one or more output devices, one or more microprocessor devices, and one or more memory devices are inherently disclosed by Yang. See MPEP 2112.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that because new grounds of rejection have been made for unamended claims 3, 18 and 19, that this action is made non-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/G.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights