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/Restriction and Status of Claims
The current application includes device and method claims that are commonly subjected to restrictions, at least due to different classifications. However, an original independent device Claim 1 has a structure that can be created by an original independent method Claim 12, while an original independent device Claim 18 differs from the method Claim 12 insignificantly, based on the disclosure. Accordingly, claims of the current application directed to a device and to a method would be examined together as far as the claims would not be modified (in the course of examination) such as to create a possibility to restrict device and method claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are examined on merits herein.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2022/0216143).
In re Claim 1, Yang teaches a device comprising (Figs. 23A-23C):
a die 110/120/130/124 (paragraphs 0045, 0048, 0050) including a contact pad 124;
a conductive structure including:
multiple support pillars 182/160 (paragraphs 0063, 0058) coupled to the die 110/120/130;
a bridge 184 (paragraph 0063) coupled to each of the multiple support pillars 182/160; and
a cap pillar 240 (paragraph 0077) coupled to the bridge 184 opposite the multiple support pillars 182/160; and
a solder cap 250 (paragraph 0079) coupled to the cap pillar 240, wherein the solder cap 250 is electrically connected to the contact pad 124 via the cap pillar 240, the bridge 184, and at least one of the multiple support pillars 182/160.
In re Claim 2, Yang teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the multiple support pillars 182/160 (Figs. 23A-23C) of the conductive structure include more than two support pillars 182/160.
In re Claim 4, Yang teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein (Figs. 23A-23C and Annotated Fig. 23C) the bridge 184 extends in a first lateral direction – FLD (as in Annotated Fig. 23C, FLD is a horizontal direction) across a first set of support pillars 182a/160, 182b/160, 182c/160 of the multiple support pillars, and extends in a second lateral direction – SLD (as in Annotated Fig. 23C, SLD is a vertical direction) across a second set of support pillars 182a/160 and 182d/160 of the multiple support pillars.
Annotated Fig. 23C
PNG
media_image1.png
379
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 10, Yang teaches the device of Claim 1 as cited above, including the conductive structure comprised the cap pillar and multiple support pillar.
Although Yang states (paragraph 0087) that pillars 182 provide a support force, Yang does not teach, at least, explicitly, that the conductive structure is configured to
distribute a force received via the cap pillar to two or more of the multiple support
pillars. However, a recitation: “to distribute a force received via the cap pillar to two or more of the multiple support pillars” is a functional limitation, while the structure of Claim 1 is fully disclosed by Yang. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims, I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT: “
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Accordingly, it would have been inherent for the Yang structure of Claim 1 to comply with the functional limitation of Claim 10.
In re Claim 11, Yang teaches the device of Claim 1 as cited above, wherein (Figs. 23A-23C) an interface of the cap pillar 240 and the solder cap 250 (having a same diameter) has a first area that is greater than a second area of an interface of the at least one of the multiple support pillars 182 and the contact pad.
In re Claim 12, Yang teaches a method of fabrication, the method comprising:
forming (Figs. 1A-1J) a conductive structure on a die 110/120 (paragraphs 0045, 0048) including a contact pad 124a (paragraph 0048), the conductive structure including:
multiple support pillars 182a(b, c) (paragraph 0063) coupled to the die 110/120;
a bridge 184 (paragraph 0063) coupled to each of the multiple support pillars 182/160; and
a cap pillar 240 (paragraph 0077) coupled to the bridge 184 opposite the multiple support pillars 182/160; and
forming a solder cap 250 (paragraph 0079) coupled to the cap pillar 240, wherein the solder cap 250 is electrically connected to the contact pad 124a via the cap pillar 240, the bridge 184, and at least one of the multiple support pillars 182.
In re Claim 13, Yang teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein forming (Figs. 1A-1J) the conductive structure includes (like Figs. 23A-23C show) forming an array (such as a structure comprised columns and rows) of a plurality of support pillars 182/160, the plurality of support pillars including the multiple support pillars.
In re Claim 14, Yang teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein forming the conductive structure includes (Figs. 1C-1F) forming the bridge 184.
In re Claim 15, Yang teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein forming the conductive structure includes (Figs. 1H-1J) forming the cap pillar 240.
In re Claim 16, Yang teaches the method of Claim 12 as cited above and further comprising forming (Fig. 1B) an under bump metallization layer 160 (paragraph 0058) on the contact pad 124, and wherein (Fig. 1F) the under bump metallization layer 160 is positioned between the contact pad 124 and the at least one of the multiple support pillars 182.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Guevara (US 2023/0299031).
In re Claim 1, Guevara teaches a device comprising (Annotated Fig. 1)
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
372
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a die 105/180/112/108 including a contact pad 108 (paragraph 0004);
a conductive structure including:
multiple support pillars SP1, SP2, SP3 (as in Annotated Fig. 1) coupled to the die 105/180 – through the bridge – BRIDGE - and SP2 - as in Annotated Fig. 1 and SP2;
a bridge - BRIDGE (as in Annotated Fig. 1, the bridge being an upper part of metal redistribution layer 122, paragraph 0005) coupled (as being attached to) each of the multiple support pillars SP1, SP2, SP3; and
a cap pillar 125 (paragraph 0005) coupled to the bridge opposite the multiple support pillars SP1, SP2, SP3; and
a solder cap 128 (paragraph 0005) coupled to the cap pillar 125, wherein the solder cap 128 is electrically connected to the contact pad 104 via the cap pillar 125, the bridge, and at least one – such as SP2 - of the multiple support pillars.
In re Claim 9, Guevara teaches the device of Claim 1 as cited above, wherein (Annotated Fig. 1): the die 105/180/108/112 includes a passivation layer 112 (paragraph 0004); and an entirety of a bottom of a first support pillar SP1 of the multiple support pillars is in contact with the passivation layer 112 (per 0004, the passivation layer exposes only 108).
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 3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0173048).
In re Claim 3, Yang teaches the device of Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach that the conductive structure includes another cap pillar coupled to the bridge
opposite the multiple support pillars; and another solder cap is coupled to the other cap pillar, where the other solder cap is electrically connected to the contact pad via the other cap pillar, the bridge, and the at least one of the multiple support pillars.
Yu teaches a conductive structure including (Annotated Portion of Fig. 1B): FCP (as a first cap pillar) and SCP (as another cap pillar) coupled to a same bridge 11 (paragraph 0005), FSC (as a first solder cap 131, paragraph 0005) and SSC (as other – second- solder cap) coupled to the other cap pillar SCP, where the other solder cap SSC is electrically connected to a contact pad – CP (as in Annotated Portion of Fig. 1B) via the other cap pillar SCP, the bridge 11, and the at least one of the multiple support pillar -SP (as in Annotated Portion of Fig. 1B).
Annotated Portion of Fig. 1B
PNG
media_image4.png
239
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yang and Yu teach analogous arts directed to a conductive structure comprised at least a bridge connecting a plurality of support pillars, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yang device in view of the Yu device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Yu refers to the device successfully used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yang device by creating a second cap pillar with a corresponding second solder cap and connecting the second cap pillar and the second solder cap to the bridge and connecting them by the bridge and the at least one support pillar to the contact pad of the die when it is desirable to modify the structure by connecting a few cap pillars to the same bridge.
In re Claim 5, Yang teaches the device of Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach that the solder cap is offset from the contact pad in a lateral direction.
Yu teaches (Annotated Portion of Fig. 1B) that a solder cap SSC is offset from a contact pad CP in a lateral direction.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yang device by creating the solder cap being offset from the contact pad in the lateral direction when such design is preferred for the manufacturer.
In re Claim 6, Yang teaches the device of Claim 1 as cited above, including the conductive structure. Yang further teaches (Fig. 24) that the die 110/120/130 includes multiple contact pads, including the contact pad (of Claim 1), but does not teach that the conductive structure is electrically coupled to two or more contact pads of
the multiple contact pads.
Yu teaches (Annotated Portion of Fig. 1B) that a conductive feature includes multiple contact pads and is electrically coupled to two contact pads – CP and CP1 of the multiple contact pads.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yang device of Claim 1 by adding to the die multiple contact pads with at least two of them (including the contact pad of Claim 1) being connected to the conductive structure, when the manufacturer uses the die having at least two contact pads that are needed to be connected to the same conduct structure.
In re Claim 8, Yang teaches the device of Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach that a first support pillar of the multiple support pillars is offset in a lateral direction with respect to the contact pad such that the first support pillar does not overlap the contact pad in a plan view.
Yu teaches (Annotated Portion of Fig. 1B) that a first support pillar SP is offset in a lateral direction with respect to a contact pad CP1 such that the first support pillar SP does not overlap the contact pad CP1 in a plan view.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yang device of Claim 1 such that a first support pillar of the multiple support pillars would be offset in a lateral direction with respect to the contact pad (per Yu, for example, but creating from pad 124 two pads, a second pad being connected to the bridge with its own support pillar belonging to the multiple support pillars, and this additional support pillar would not overlap the pad to which initial support pillars 182/160 are connected) in the plan view, wherein such dispositions of a first support pillar and the contact pad are desired by the manufacturer.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0197837 - Yu-1, hereafter) in view of Guevara.
In re Claim 1, Yu-1 teaches a device comprising:
a die 10, 12 (paragraph 0024) including a contact pad 12 (one of four, paragraph 0025);
a conductive structure including:
multiple support pillars 14 (paragraph 0026) coupled to the die 10, 12;
a bridge 34 (paragraph 0033) coupled to each of the multiple support pillars 14; and
a solder cap 36 (paragraph 0036), wherein the solder cap 36 is electrically connected to the contact pad 12 via the bridge 34 and at least one of the multiple support pillars 14.
Yu-1 does not teach a cap pillar coupled to the bridge opposite the multiple support pillars, wherein the solder cap is coupled to the cap pillar and is connected to the contact pad also using the cap pillar.
Guevara teaches a cap pillar 125 (Annotated Fig. 1, paragraph 0005) disposed between a solder cap 128 (paragraph 0004) and a bridge (BRIDGE, being an upper part of RDL 122, paragraph 0005), being opposite to support pillars SP and coupling the solder cap 128 to the bridge, and, obviously, to corresponding support pillars.
Yu-1 and Guevara teach analogous arts directed to devices comprised a solder cap, a bridge, support pillars, and a die with a contact pad, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yu-1 device in view of the Guevara device, since devices are from the same field of endeavor, and Guevara’ device was
successfully used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yu-1 device by substituting its solder cap with a solder cap disposed on the cap pillar (per Guevara), if the manufacturer prefers having a stack of the solder cap and the cap pillar rather than a solder cap alone, in which case, the cap pillar would be coupled to the bridge at the bridge side opposite to those to which the support pillars are coupled, and the solder cap would be connected to the contact pad also through the cap pillar. See, in addition, MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (B): Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results.
In re Claim 7, Yu-1/Guevara teaches the device of Claim 1 as cited above, including the support pillars.
Yu-1/Guevara does not teach that a minimum distance between neighboring
support pillars of the multiple support pillars is based on an underfill flow clearance
dimension.
However, the Yu-1 device is small (paragraph 0039), and for small devices - small distances between adjacent electrically conductive pillars cannot be chosen arbitrary – they shall comply with requirements of corresponding industry standards, including J-STD-028, J-STD-026, etc. that set limits on sizes and dispositions of various small elements, including such limit as a minimum distance between neighboring support pillars, which is based (in accordance with J-STD-026) on an underfill flow clearance dimension. As Fig. 1E of Yu-1 shows, a space between the support pillars 14 is filled with an encapsulant 30 (paragraph 0031) which is used to protect the support pillars from various mechanical stresses. If distances between adjacent support pillars are too small, underfill material may not fully cover each pillar, leading to creation of voids and incomplete stress relief; if distances are too large – underfill is considered as not capable of adequately protecting a pillar from various mechanical stresses.
In view of the above, and in view of the industry standards governing the distances between small pillars, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create a minimum distance between neighboring support pillars of the multiple support pillars based on an underfill flow clearance dimension, as is required by the industry standard.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Guevara.
In re Claim 17, Yang teaches the method of Claim 12 as cited above, including the solder cap, but does not teach a step of electrically coupling the die to a substrate via the solder cap.
Guevara teaches a method of creating a structure of Fig. 2H, similar to Fig. 1J of Yang, the structure of Fig. 2H comprising a solder cap 229 (Guevara, paragraph 0020). Guevara further teaches a step of electrically coupling a die 105/180 (paragraph 0004) to a package substrate 310 (Fig. 3A, paragraphs 0024-0025) via a solder cap 229.
Yang and Guevara teach analogous arts directed to a method of creating a structure comprised a die which pad is connected to a solder cap, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yang method in view of the Guevara method, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Guevara’ method created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yang method by electrically coupling the die to a package substrate via the solder cap (per Guevara), wherein it is desirable to incorporate the die into a package comprising a package substrate.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guevara.
In re Claim 18, Guevara teaches a device comprising:
a die 105/180/108 including a contact pad 108 (Annotated Fig. 1, paragraph 0004);
a conductive structure including:
multiple support pillars SP1, SP2, SP3 (as in Annotated Fig. 1) coupled to the die 105/180/108;
a bridge – BRIDGE (as in Annotated Fig. 1, the bridge being an upper portion of RDL 122, paragraph 0005) coupled (inseparably attached) to each of the multiple support pillars SP1, SP2, SP3; and
a cap pillar 125 (paragraph 0005) coupled to the bridge opposite the multiple support pillars.
For the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guevara does not teach a substrate electrically connected to the die via the cap pillar, the bridge, at least one of the multiple support pillars, and the contact pad.
For the embodiment of Fig. 3A, Guevara teaches a package substrate 310 (paragraph 0023) electrically connected to a die 105/180/108 via a cap pillar 225 and a solder cap 229 (paragraphs 0018, 0020) connected to the die.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the embodiment of Fig. 3 by substituting its die connected to the substrate via the cap pillar and the solder cap with the die including the conductive structure of Fig. 1 and electrically connecting the substrate to the die via the cap pillar, the bridge, and at least one of the multiple support pillars and the contact pad, wherein it is desirable to incorporate the device of Fig. 1 into a package.
In re Claim 19, Guevara teaches the device of Claim 18 as cited above and further comprising (Fig. 3A) an underfill material – as a lower portion of a mold compound 386 - interposed between the die 105/180/108 and the substrate 30.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guevara in view of Correale et al. (US 2019/0213298).
In re Claim 20, Guevara teaches the device of Claim 18 as cited above including the conductive structure comprised conductors – as a bridge of a redistribution layer (RDL) and conductive pillars, but does not teach that the conductive structure is associated with a power distribution network to enable power to be provided between the die and the substrate.
Correale teaches (Claim 1) that a power distribution network comprises conductors (as traces/bridges) and conductive pillars.
Guevara and Correale teach analogous arts directed to a conductive structure comprised conductive pillars and conductors, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Guevara device in view of the Correale teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Correale power distribution network successfully functions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Guevara device of Claim 18 by using the conductive structure as a power distribution network to enable providing power between the die and the substrate wherein it is desirable to reduce a size of the device by not adding the power distribution network in addition to the structure of Claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible). Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 08/04/26
Prosecution Insights