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 .
Specification
The specification submitted 4/30/2024 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 4/30/2024 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner.
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, 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.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-188 (US # 20180269188) in view of Ryu-747 (US # 20160027747) and Chen-608 (US # 20140252608).
Regarding Claim 17, Yu-188 teaches a device comprising:
an integrated circuit die (114);
an encapsulant (130) at least partially encapsulating the integrated circuit die;
a redistribution structure (160) on the encapsulant, the redistribution structure comprising:
a metallization pattern (138, 146, 154; [0025]) electrically coupled to the integrated circuit die;
a dielectric layer (156) on the metallization pattern, the dielectric layer having a first thickness; and
a first under-bump metallurgy (162) having a first via portion (the lower portion embedded in layer 156) extending through the dielectric layer and a first bump portion (the upper portion of 156) on the dielectric layer, the first under-bump metallurgy being physically and electrically coupled to the metallization pattern (shown), the first via portion having a first width,
Although Yu-188discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the redistribution structure comprising the ratio of the first thickness to the first width being from 1.33 to 1.66.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Chen-608 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a topmost dielectric layer 504 with a thickness between 5 and 30 microns ([0029]).
Another example, Ryu-747 teaches a via width (on the order of 10-25 microns under a larger overlying bump ([0067-68]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions ratios of REFA with the dielectric thickness dimension suggested by Chen-608 and the via width suggested by Ryu-747 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Chen-608 and Ryu-747 would be to employ a redistribution structure comprising the ratio of the first thickness to the first width being from 1.33 to 1.66. The rationale for this obvious modification is that a thick dielectric provides protection from mechanical stress (Chen-608, see [0029]) and a via small increases routing density and reduces shorting (Ryu-747, see [0029-30].
Regarding Claim 18, Yu-188 teaches the device of claim 17, further comprising:
a conductive via (112) extending through the encapsulant (130), the metallization pattern electrically coupled to the conductive via ([0018, 24, 28]).
Regarding Claim 19, Chen-60, as applied to claim 17, 8 teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the first thickness is from 10 µm to 30 µm ([0029] teaches an overlapping range).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the second via portion having a second width, a ratio of the first thickness to the second width being from 1.33 to 1.66, the second width being greater than the first width, the second bump portion and the first bump portion having a same third width.
Regarding Claim 14, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the second under-bump metallurgy being physically and electrically coupled to the metallization pattern, the second via portion having a second width, the second width being different than the first width, the second bump portion and the first bump portion having a same third width.
All dependent claims of 1 and 14 are allowable at least based on that dependency.
Claim 20 is 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 20, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including a ratio of the first thickness to the second width being from 1.33 to 1.66, the second width being greater than the first width, the second bump portion and the first bump portion having a same third width.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached on normally working Monday-Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights