DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/25/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 47-49, 51-52 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “wherein in a cross-sectional view, a first horizontal maximum width of the first region is different from a second horizontal maximum width of the second region, in the cross-sectional view, a horizontal maximum width of the first area of the top surface of the metal pad is greater than the first horizontal maximum width,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there appears to be no disclosure of a first maximum width of a first region or a second maximum width of a second region of the second area of the top surface of the metal pad, the relationship between the first and second maximum widths, or the relationship between the maximum width of the first area of the top surface of the metal pad and the first maximum width. It is noted that drawings are not to scale and therefore maximum widths of regions of the bond pad cannot be construed from the drawings.
Regarding claim 48, the limitation “wherein the first part includes a first particle, the second part includes a second particle, and in the cross-sectional view, one of the first particle and the second particle does not vertically overlap the second conductive structure, and the first particle or the second particle vertically overlap the first conductive structure,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, is unclear as to how it is related to the first part and the second part being directly contacting the first area. Specifically, there is no disclosure which particle(s) of the first portion of the particulate layer do or do not overlap the first and/or second conductive structure. It is noted that drawings are not to scale and therefore even if a particle in Fig. 4 could be construed to be at an elevation higher than the top surface of the pad in the second area, the drawing alone would not support this claimed limitation without further disclosure of the relative elevations or dimensions of the roughened surface and particles. Rather, the position of the particles would depend on the depth of the recesses, the thickness of the particulate layer, and the size of the particles, none of which is disclosed or discussed.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claim 47-49, 51-52, 55, and 67-76 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.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “particulate layer” is unclear as to what is required by the element. Specifically, it is unclear if the particulate layer is the compilation of the particles only or also includes the surrounding material layer. It is noted that the term is not used in the specification and it is unclear which disclosed element(s) applicant intends represent in the claimed element.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “wherein the second area of the top surface of the metal pad includes a first region and a second region, wherein the first region is disposed between a first sidewall of the accommodating hole and a first lateral surface of the metal pad, the second region is disposed between a second sidewall of the accommodating hole and a second lateral surface of the metal pad, wherein the first sidewall of the accommodating hole is opposite to the second sidewall of the accommodating hole, the first lateral surface of the metal pad is opposite to the second lateral surface of the metal pad, wherein in a cross-sectional view, a first horizontal maximum width of the first region is different from a second horizontal maximum width of the second region, in the cross-sectional view, a horizontal maximum width of the first area of the top surface of the metal pad is greater than the first horizontal maximum width,” is unclear as to what is required. Specifically, it is unclear what is intended to constitute the first region and the second region, if the “between a first (second) sidewall of the accommodating hole and a first (second) lateral surface of the metal pad,” in intended to define endpoints of the region, and as to what is required by “horizontal maximum width.”
Regarding claim 48, the limitation “wherein the first part includes a first particle, the second part includes a second particle, and in the cross-sectional view, one of the first particle and the second particle does not vertically overlap the second conductive structure, and the first particle or the second particle vertically overlap the first conductive structure,” is unclear as to how it is related to the requirements of claim 47. Specifically, claim 47 requires first part and the second part being directly contacting the first area, and therefore it is unclear how the first particle or the second particle can be a part of the first or second part can vertically overlap the first conductive structure and be in direct contact with the metal pad, which is a portion of the second conductive structure.
Regarding claims 67 and 73, the limitation “substantially aligned,” is indefinite because the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 67 and 73, the limitation “aligned with each other in a first dimension that extends from the low-density conductive structure to the high-density conductive structure,” is unclear as to what is meant by being aligned in a first “dimension,” dimension being understood as a measure of special extent, e.g. width or height. It is therefore unclear as to how elements can be “aligned in,” e.g., width or height, what would be required of said alignment, and what is meant by a “dimension” which extends from the low-density conductive structure to the high-density conductive structure.
Regarding claims 67 and 73, the limitation “tapers away from the low-density conductive structure along the first dimension,” is unclear as to what is required by “tapers away from the low-density conductive structure along the first dimension.” Specifically, the first dimension is recited as “extend[ing] from the low-density conductive structure to the high-density conductive structure,” and it is therefore unclear if “from” in “away from the low-density conductive structure” is intended to indicate a starting point of the taper. It is further unclear if the “taper…along the first dimension” is intended to indicate a direction over which the dimension gets smaller or the dimension which is tapered (e.g. the width tapers or the height tapers).
Regarding claim 68, the limitation “wherein the first portion tapers away from the low-density conductive structure along the first dimension and the second portion extends in a second dimension horizontal to the first dimension,” is unclear as to how it is related to the taper of the unit portions required by claim 67. It is further unclear as to what is meant by being extending in a first “dimension,” dimension being understood as a measure of special extent, e.g. width or height. It is therefore unclear what is required of said extending.
Regarding claim 69, the limitation “recessed” is unclear as to in what direction.
Regarding claims 71 and 72, the limitation “wherein the conductive through via is formed or disposed in the accommodating hole formed from the plurality of unit portions, wherein the plurality of unit portions are removed completely to form the empty accommodating hole, and the conductive through via is formed or disposed in the accommodating hole,” and “a width and a profile of the accommodating hole are defined and limited by the plurality of unit portions” are unclear as to what is required. Specifically, the claim appears to recite a product by process limitation and/or an intermediate product and/or portions which are temporary in the process of making the claimed structure. It is unclear how the recited elements and processes are related to the recited elements and structure of claim 67 and how the recited elements and processes should be interpreted.
Regarding claim 73, the limitation “a lateral surface of adhesion layer,” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited adhesion layer.
Regarding claim 75, the limitation “comprising a conductive material disposed on the intermediate structure to fill the accommodating hole,” is unclear as to how the conductive material fills the accommodating hole if the intermediate structure is also in the accommodating hole as required by claim 73.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
It is noted that the claims have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896