Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (WO2018/080012, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Lee teaches a solder alloy/ball and semiconductor package [Title, 0001]. Lee teaches a specific alloy composition that meets claim 1 and claim 3 [Table 1, Example 8]:
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Lee (wt%)
Relation
Silver (Ag)
2.7 – 3.3%
3%
Falls within
Copper (Cu)
0.5 – 0.75%
0.5%
Falls within
Bismuth (Bi)
0.8 – 1.2%
1%
Falls within
Nickel (Ni)
0.03 – 0.1%
0.05%
Falls within
Palladium (Pd)
0.01 – 0.04%
0.03%
Falls within
Tin (Sn)
Remainder
Remaining
Meets
Lee also teaches that the solder alloy can be formed into solder balls [Title], meeting claim 3.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2018/080012, using espacenet translation) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, Iijima (US2022/0324061)
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Lee teaches the invention as applied in claims 1 and 3, respectively. Lee suggests that germanium (Ge) can be present in small quantities via introduction through an Sn master alloy [0101], but does not provide a specific range relative to the solder alloy.
Iijima teaches a Sn-based solder alloy/solder alloy ball [Title] with a similar compositon to Lee [0028]. In particular, Iijima discloses the germanium can be included in the alloy in a range of 0.001 – 0.015 mass%, which overlaps with the claimed range of claims 2 and 4 [0073]. Iijima states that this inclusion of germanium helps inhibit formation of tin oxide which improves wettability and helps prevent void formation [0074]. Iijima also states that the inclusion of germanium results in bonding with nickel and thereby form an intermetallic with tin at the bond interface which ultimately helps prevent nickel migration and leaching [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the solder alloy of Lee and controlled germanium to be present in a range of 0.001 – 0.015 mass%, as disclosed by Iijima. Lee and Iijima are directed to the same field of endeavor of tin-based solder alloys and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Iijima to be pertinent to Lee. Moreover, a reasonable expectation of success would exist because Iijima teaches a similar/overlapping alloy composition to Lee and because Lee expressly notes that germanium can be included. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Iijima to Lee because controlling germanium in the disclosed range helps inhibit formation of tin oxide which improves wettability, helps prevents void formation, and helps prevent nickel migration and leaching.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, “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)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Iijima teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. Lee teaches that the solder ball has a size of 100 – 250 µm [0103], which falls within the claimed range of claim 5
Claims 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (JP2006054467, using espacenet translation) in view of Lee (WO2018/080012, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches a conventional arrangement with diagram of a semiconductor package using solder balls [0002]. Kim teaches that a conventional layout possesses an upper substrate and a lower substrate as a semiconductor substrate and a module substrate, respectively [0002] [Fig 1]. These components possess a conductive layer pad and a conductive pad [Fig 1, “8” and “22”] with a solder composition between them [“24”, Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 6 of a lower electronic component, an upper electronic component, and a solder joint between them.
Kim does not expressly disclose a/the solder compositon.
Lee teaches a solder alloy for a semiconductor package [0032, 0033]. Lee teaches a specific alloy composition that meets claim 6 [Table 1, Example 8]:
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Lee (wt%)
Relation
Silver (Ag)
2.7 – 3.3%
3%
Falls within
Copper (Cu)
0.5 – 0.75%
0.5%
Falls within
Bismuth (Bi)
0.8 – 1.2%
1%
Falls within
Nickel (Ni)
0.03 – 0.1%
0.05%
Falls within
Palladium (Pd)
0.01 – 0.04%
0.03%
Falls within
Tin (Sn)
Remainder
Remaining
Meets
Lee also teaches that the solder alloy contains a combination of elements that improve thermal cycle characteristics and wetting properties [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the semiconductor package arrangement disclosed by Kim and used the solder alloy disclosed by Lee. Kim and Lee are directed to the same field of endeavor of semiconductor package bonding/soldering and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Lee to be pertinent to Kim. Moreover, a reasonable expectation of success would exist because Kim notes that solder balls can be lead-free tin alloys [0014] and because Lee teaches that the solder alloy disclosed is used for bonding semiconductor packages. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Lee because the alloy uses additional elements which improve the wetting properties as well as the thermal cycle characteristics, and because Kim does not provide a specific compositon to be used.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Lee teaches the invention as applied in claim 8. Kim teaches that the lower component has a module substrate and conductive pad (interpreted as claimed substrate electrode), meeting the claimed limitation [Fig 1, 0002, 0004]. Kim teaches that the upper component has a semiconductor substrate and a conductive layer pad [Fig 1, 0002, 0003], meeting the claimed limitations of a semiconductor electrode and “base layer”. Kim also teaches that a PSR layer is present, alternatively meeting the claimed limitation of a “base layer” [“18”, Fig 1, 0003].
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Lee teaches the invention as applied in claim 7. Kim teaches that that conductive layer pad (interpreted as the claimed semiconductor electrode) has a copper layer, a nickel layer disposed thereon, and then a subsequent gold layer disposed thereon [Fig 1, 0003], meeting the claimed limitations.
Likewise, Kim discloses that the conductive pad (interpreted as the claimed substrate electrode) has a copper layer, a nickel layer disposed thereon, and then a subsequent gold layer disposed thereon [Fig 1, 0004], meeting the claimed limitations.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2024/0399512 – solder alloy/solder ball with overlapping compositon
US2018/0102464 – Advanced solder alloys with overlapping ranges and discussion of additive benefits
WO2024034689 – Solder alloy with overlapping composition and solder joint
KR20180054036 – solder ball with overlapping composition and chip package
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights