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 Invention I in the reply filed on 19 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 and 26-31 are pending.
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 3, 9, 16, and 28 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.
The above claims each recite the limitation "length and width". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is treating this limitation as defining “a length and width” to be of the same form as, for example, claim 5.
Examiner notes that due to their dependence upon the above claims, all pending claims are rejected on the same basis.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220052006 (Kang et al).
As to claim 7: Kang teaches a method of making a semiconductor device comprising:
providing a semiconductor die (Fig 1A, 130);
depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die (140);
forming an interconnect structure over the semiconductor die and encapsulant (comprising layers 111b);
forming a first under-bump metallization (UBM) pad over the interconnect structure, (Fig 1B, UBM structure 120); and
disposing a stencil over the first UBM pad, wherein the stencil includes a first opening over the first UBM pad with a footprint of the first opening larger than a footprint of the first UBM pad (Fig 1B, stencil 111a, opening W3 greater than that of pad W2).
As to claim 12: Kang teaches the method of claim 7 and further teaches wherein the first opening includes a length or width greater than a parallel dimension of the first UBM pad (Fig 1B, stencil 111a, opening W3 greater than that of pad W2 along that direction).
As to claim 14: Kang teaches a method of making a semiconductor device comprising:
providing a semiconductor die (Fig 1A, 130);
disposing a stencil over the first UBM pad, wherein the stencil includes a first opening over the first UBM pad with a footprint of the first opening larger than a footprint of the first UBM pad (Fig 1B, stencil 111a, opening W3 greater than that of pad W2).
As to claim 19: Kang teaches the method of claim 14 and further teaches wherein the first opening includes a length or width greater than a parallel dimension of the first UBM pad (Fig 1B, stencil 111a, opening W3 greater than that of pad W2 along that direction).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 13, 26, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and US 20140374921 (Yu et al).
As to claim 1: Kang teaches a method of making a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a semiconductor die (Fig 1A, 130);
depositing an encapsulant over the semiconductor die (140);
forming an interconnect structure over the semiconductor die and encapsulant (comprising layers 111b);
forming a first under-bump metallization (UBM) pad over the interconnect structure, (Fig 1B, UBM structure 120), wherein the UBM pad is non-circular (embodiment with rectangular 120 shown in Fig 4D);
disposing a stencil over the first UBM pad, wherein the stencil includes a first opening over the first UBM pad with a footprint of the first opening larger than a footprint of the first UBM pad (Fig 1B, stencil 111a, opening W3 greater than that of pad W2);
depositing a solder in the first opening (160); and
reflowing the solder to form a solder bump on the UBM pad (160 may be solder ball ¶0035).
Kang fails to explicitly teach wherein the solder is a solder paste.
Yu discloses that solder can generally be substituted with solder paste (Yu ¶0015). The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 6: Kang+Yu teaches the method of claim 1. Kang further teaches wherein the first opening includes a length or width greater than a parallel dimension of the first UBM pad (Kang Fig 1B, opening W3 larger than W2 along dimension shown).
As to claim 13: Kang teaches the method of claim 7, but fails to teach depositing a solder paste. Yu, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches further depositing a solder paste in the first opening on the first UBM pad (see claim 1 rejection).
As to claim 26: Kang teaches a method of making a semiconductor device comprising:
providing a semiconductor die (Fig 1A, 130);
disposing a stencil over the first UBM pad, wherein the stencil includes a first opening over the first UBM pad with a footprint of the first opening larger than a footprint of the first UBM pad (Fig 1B, stencil 111a, opening W3 greater than that of pad W2);
depositing a solder in the first opening (160)
Kang fails to explicitly teach the solder being a solder paste.
Yu, as applied to claim 1 and for the same reasons, teaches replacing a general solder with solder paste.
As to claim 31: Kang+Yu teaches the method of claim 26. Kang further teaches wherein the first opening includes a length or width greater than a parallel dimension of the first UBM pad (Fig 1B, stencil 111a, opening W3 greater than that of pad W2 along that direction).
Claim(s) 2-4, 8-10, 15-17, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Yu as applied above, and further in view of US 20220310503 (Hsu et al).
As to claim 2: Kang+Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach details of the layout of plural UBMs and related structures. Kang does teach a plurality of UBM pads, and therefore the stencil would include a second opening over a second UBM pad.
Hsu discloses including forming a group of UBM pads over the interconnect structure, wherein:
the first UBM pad is formed on an edge of the group of UBM pads (Hsu Fig 16, bottom-right pad);
a second UBM pad is formed internal to the group of UBM pads (central pad);
the first pad is larger than the second pad by being elongated in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the group of UBM pads (Hsu central pad circular, first pad octagonal, e.g. along the diagonal of the octagon).
Kang already teaches the stencil to be larger than the pad, so the combination of Kang+Yu+Hsu thereby teaches the first stencil being larger by the second stencil in the same way as the pads themselves.
All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing.
As to claim 3: Kang+Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach details of the layout of plural UBMs and related structures. Kang does teach a plurality of UBM pads, and therefore the stencil would include a second opening over a second UBM pad.
Hsu discloses including forming a group of UBM pads over the interconnect structure, wherein:
the first UBM pad is formed at a corner of the group of UBM pads (Hsu Fig 16, bottom-right pad);
a second UBM pad is formed internal to the group of UBM pads (central pad);
the first pad is larger than the second pad by being elongated in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the group of UBM pads (mapped the same way as analogous limitations in claim 2 and rationale to combine same as that presented in claim 2 rejection)
As to claim 4: Kang+Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the first UBM pad is oblong or rectangular shaped. Hsu, for the same reasons as those applied to claim 2, teaches the first UBM pad is oblong or rectangular shaped (bottom-right pad in Hsu reasonably considered to be oblong).
As to claim 8: Kang teaches the method of claim 7 but fails to explicitly teach details of the layout of plural UBMs and related structures. Hsu, in the same way as applied to claim 2 and for the same reasons above, teach all further limitations of claim 8.
As to claim 9: Kang teaches the method of claim 7 but fails to explicitly teach details of the layout of plural UBMs and related structures. Hsu, in the same way as applied to claim 3 and for the same reasons above, teach all further limitations of claim 9.
As to claim 10: Kang teaches the method of claim 7 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first UBM pad is oblong or rectangular shaped.
Hsu, in the same way as applied to claim 4 and for the same reasons, teaches wherein the first UBM pad is oblong or rectangular shaped.
As to claim 15: Kang teaches the method of claim 14, but fails to explicitly teach details of the layout of plural UBMs and related structures. Kang does teach a plurality of UBM pads, and therefore the stencil would include a second opening over a second UBM pad.
Hsu, as applied to claim 2 and for the same reasons, teaches all further limitations of claim 15.
As to claim 16: Kang teaches the method of claim 14, but fails to explicitly teach details of the layout of plural UBMs and related structures. Kang does teach a plurality of UBM pads, and therefore the stencil would include a second opening over a second UBM pad.
Hsu, as applied to claim 3 and for the same reasons, teaches all further limitations of claim 16.
As to claim 17: Kang teaches the method of claim 14 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first UBM pad is oblong or rectangular shaped.
Hsu, as applied to claim 4 and for the same reasons, teaches wherein the first UBM pad is oblong or rectangular shaped.
As to claim 27: Kang+Yu teaches the method of claim 26 but fails to explicitly teach details of the layout of plural UBMs and related structures. Kang does teach a plurality of UBM pads, and therefore the stencil would include a second opening over a second UBM pad.
Hsu, as applied to claim 2 and for the same reasons, teaches all further limitations of claim 27.
As to claim 28: Kang+Yu teaches the method of claim 26 but fails to explicitly teach details of the layout of plural UBMs and related structures. Kang does teach a plurality of UBM pads, and therefore the stencil would include a second opening over a second UBM pad.
Hsu, as applied to claim 3 and for the same reasons, teaches all further limitations of claim 28.
As to claim 29: Kang+Yu teaches the method of claim 26 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first UBM pad is oblong or rectangular shaped.
Hsu, as applied to claim 4 and for the same reasons, teaches wherein the first UBM pad is oblong or rectangular shaped.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, 18, and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As to claim 5: no art found by examiner teaches or renders obvious the limitation wherein “the first opening of the stencil has a length and width equal to a length and width of the first UBM pad and a corner radius of the first opening is less than a corner radius of the first UBM pad.” While both corners are shown to be right angles (and thereby have a corner radius of zero), both corner radii being zero does not satisfy one corner radius being less than the other.
Claims 11, 18, and 30 would be allowable for analogous limitations as those presented for claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Corbyn D Mellinger whose telephone number is (703)756-5683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 Eastern.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/Corbyn D Mellinger/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights