DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office action is in response to Amendments 11/10/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 15-19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art1 (hereinafter AAPA) in view of Hen (US 2003/0146445 A1; hereinafter Hen).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA discloses a prior art method of fabricating a bonding pad (“conventional bonding pad structure in the current art” in ¶ 0008 of Applicant’s Specification), comprising:
forming an isolation layer (“shallow trench isolation (STI) 206” in Fig. 2B, ¶ 0027) over an interconnect layer (“multilayer interconnect layer 202” in Fig. 2B, ¶ 0027);
forming a trench (either trench shown in Fig. 2B) that extends through the isolation layer, wherein the trench exposes the interconnect layer (see Fig. 2B); and
forming a conductive pad (“conductive bonding pad 208a and 208b” in ¶ 0027) over the isolation layer, wherein the conductive pad partially fills the trench and partially lands on a top surface of the isolation layer, the conductive pad extends to the interconnect layer (see Fig. 2B).
AAPA does not form a non-conducting stress-releasing over the isolation layer, wherein the non-conducting stress-releasing structure has a configuration of a surrounding wall from a top view; forming the aforementioned trench after forming the non-conducting stress-releasing structure; forming the conductive pad over the non-conducting stress-releasing structure, or the conductive pad wraps and adjoins top and side surfaces of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure.
Hen discloses forming non-conducting stress-releasing structures (a “silicon dioxide layer 4 . . . to release the stress of wire bonding” in Fig. 4 of Hen; ¶ 0026); wherein the non-conducting stress-releasing structure has a configuration of a surrounding wall from a top view (see Figs. 4 and 6 of Hen).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use non-conducting stress-releasing structures as taught by Hen over the isolation layer of AAPA in the method of AAPA for the benefit of reducing stress when the conductive pad is formed (¶ 0025 of Hen).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the conductive pad over the non-conducting stress-releasing structure in the method of the combination so as to provide stress release while not interfering with any electrical connection between the conductive pad and subsequently applied wire bonds (as the non-conducting stress-releasing structure is, as discussed above, non-conducting). In such a configuration, the conductive pad will wrap and adjoin top and side surfaces of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure as the non-conducting stress-releasing structure will be covered by the conductive pad (the conductive pad of AAPA covers the underlying layers as seen in Fig. 2B and ‘wraps’ is interpreted as including covering; see rendering of the combination of AAPA and Hen, below).
Regarding whether the formation of the trench occurs before or after the non-conducting stress-releasing structure in the method of the combination, the Examiner notes that the formation of the trench may occur before the formation of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure (i.e., by forming the trench, depositing the non-conducting stress-releasing structure, and etching the non-conducting stress-releasing structure to finalize its shape) or after the formation of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure (i.e., by depositing the non-conducting stress-releasing structure and shaping the non-conducting stress-releasing structure before forming the trench). Choosing between A) forming the trench first and then forming the non-conducting stress-releasing structure or B) forming the non-conducting stress-releasing structure first and then forming the trench therefore amounts to the selection of the order of process steps and the courts have held that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C), citing In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)).
With regards to the conductive pad having a first top surface in a region above the non-conducting stress-releasing structure and a second top surface in a region above the isolation layer, wherein the first top surface is above the second top surface, this feature amounts a change in the shape of the conductive pad. As there is nothing in the record to indicate that increasing the height of a portion of the conductive pad in a particular region that is above the non-conducting stress-releasing structure without increasing the height in a region that is above isolation layer would result in a device that performing differently, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for increasing the height of a portion of the conductive pad in a particular region that is above the non-conducting stress-releasing structure without increasing the height in a region that is above isolation layer (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
With regards to the conductive pad extending a greater width than that of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure, this feature amounts a change in the relative size of the components. As there is nothing in the record to indicate that decreasing the relative width non-conducting stress-releasing structure such that the conductive pad extends a greater width than that of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure would result in a device that performing differently, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for decreasing the relative width non-conducting stress-releasing structure such that the conductive pad extends a greater width than that of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
PNG
media_image1.png
769
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses that the method is suitable as a step in the formation of a back-side illuminated image sensor (¶ 0004 of Applicant’s Specification).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses bonding a conductive ball (210 in Fig. 2B) with a planar portion of the conductive pad.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Hen further discloses forming of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure includes:
depositing an oxide material to form an oxide layer (¶ 0026), and
partially etching the oxide layer (¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses that the forming of the conductive pad includes depositing a conductive material (208) over the isolation layer which, in the method of the combination, will also be over the non-conducting stress-releasing structures as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, and into the one or more trenches.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses forming an interlayer dielectric layer (204) over the interconnect layer before forming the isolation layer, and wherein the isolation layer is formed over the interlayer dielectric layer and the trench extends through the interlayer dielectric layer (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 15, AAPA discloses a prior art method of fabricating a bonding pad (“conventional bonding pad structure in the current art” in ¶ 0008 of Applicant’s Specification), comprising:
forming an isolation layer (“shallow trench isolation (STI) 206” in Fig. 2B, ¶ 0027) over a backside of a semiconductor device (“back side illuminated (BSI) image sensor” in ¶ 0002); and
forming a conductive layer (“conductive bonding pad 208a and 208b” in ¶ 0027) wherein the conductive layer partially lands on a top surface of the isolation layer and extends through the isolation layer to an interconnect layer (“multilayer interconnect layer 202” in Fig. 2B, ¶ 0027).
AAPA does not disclose forming dielectric layer over the isolation layer; removing a portion of the dielectric layer to form a patterned stress-releasing structure; and after removing the portion of the dielectric , forming the conductive layer over the patterned stress-releasing structure, wherein the conductive layer warps and adjoins top and side surfaces of the patterned stress-releasing structure.
Hen discloses forming a dielectric layer and removing a portion of the dielectric layer to form a patterned stress-releasing structure (a “silicon dioxide layer 4 . . . is deposited . . . and etching step is performed with a first mask to remove [a portion of] the oxide layer 4 . . . to release the stress of wire bonding” in Fig. 4 of Hen; ¶ 0026) beneath conductive layers (5 in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a dielectric layer and remove a portion of the dielectric layer to form a patterned stress-releasing structure as taught by Hen over the isolation layer of AAPA for the benefit of reducing stress on the conductive layer (¶ 0025 of Hen).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the conductive pad over the patterned stress-releasing structure in the method of the combination so as to provide stress release while not interfering with any electrical connection between the conductive pad and subsequently applied wire bonds (as the patterned stress-releasing structure is, as discussed above, non-conducting). In such a configuration, the conductive layer will wrap and adjoin top and side surfaces of the patterned stress-releasing structure as the patterned stress-releasing structure will be covered by the conductive layer (the conductive layer of AAPA covers the underlying layers as seen in Fig. 2B and ‘wraps’ is interpreted as including covering; see rendering of the combination of AAPA and Hen, below).
With regards to the conductive pad extending a greater width than that of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure, this feature amounts a change in the relative size of the components. As there is nothing in the record to indicate that increasing the relative width of the conductive pad such that it extends a greater width than that of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure would result in a device that performing differently, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for reducing the relative width of the patterned stress-releasing structure such that the conductive pad extends a greater width than that of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
In the resulting configuration in which the width of the patterned stress-releasing structure is reduced such that the conductive pad extends a greater width than that of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure, a portion of conductive layer will extend past the non-conducting stress-releasing structure and, therefore, the patterned stress-releasing structure spans a smaller width than the isolation layer such that the conductive layer directly interfaces with top and side surfaces of the patterned stress-releasing structure and a top surface of the isolation layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
769
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 15, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses bonding a conductive ball (210 in Fig. 2B) with the conductive layer.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 16, as discussed above. Hen further discloses that the patterned stress-releasing structures includes a first portion (left portion in Fig. 4) and an adjacent second portion (right portion) such that an opening is between the first portion and the second portion.
AAPA discloses etching the exposed portion of the isolation layer to form a trench (see Fig. 2B; ¶ 0027 of Applicant.) In the method of the combination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date that the trench will be formed between the first portion and the second portion of the stress-releasing structure where the isolation layer is exposed so that the conductive layer can reach the interconnect layer as seen in Fig. 2B of AAPA).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 17, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses, before forming the isolation layer, forming an interlayer dielectric layer (204 in Fig. 2B) over the backside of the semiconductor device; and
forming the isolation layer over the interlayer dielectric layer (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of AAPA and Hen discloses the method of claim 18, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses etching the interlayer dielectric layer to extend the trench to expose the interconnect layer (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 21, in the resulting configuration of the combination of AAPA and Hen as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, in which the width of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure is reduced such that the conductive pad extends a greater width than that of the non-conducting stress-releasing structure, a portion of conductive layer will extend past the non-conducting stress-releasing structure and, therefore, the non-conducting stress-releasing structure spans a smaller width than the isolation layer such that the conductive pad directly interfaces with top and side surfaces of the stress-releasing structure and a top surface of the isolation layer.
Regarding claim 22, with regards to the conductive layer has a first height in a first region directly above the patterned stress-releasing structure and a second height in a second region adjacent the first region and directly above the isolation layer, wherein the first and second heights are measured in reference to the top surface of the isolation layer, and the first height is greater than the second height, this feature amounts a change in the shape of the conductive layer. As there is nothing in the record to indicate that increasing the height of a portion of the conductive layer in a particular region that is directly above the patterned stress-releasing structure without increasing the height in a region adjacent to the aforementioned particular region that is directly above isolation layer would result in a device that performing differently, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for increasing the height of a portion of the conductive layer in a particular region that is directly above the patterned stress-releasing structure without increasing the height in a region adjacent to the aforementioned particular region that is directly above isolation layer (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claims 8-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art2 (hereinafter AAPA) in view of Hen (US 2003/0146445 A1; hereinafter Hen) and Dang et al. (US 7,582,518 B2; hereinafter Dang).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA discloses a prior art method of forming a bonding pad structure (“conventional bonding pad structure in the current art” in ¶ 0008 of Applicant’s Specification), comprising:
receiving a device having an interconnect layer (“multilayer interconnect layer 202” in Fig. 2B, ¶ 0027);
forming an isolation layer (“shallow trench isolation (STI) 206” in Fig. 2B, ¶ 0027) over the interconnect layer (see Fig. 2B);
forming a trench (either trench shown in Fig. 2B) in the isolation layer,
forming a conductive pad (“conductive bonding pad 208a and 208b” in ¶ 0027) over the isolation layer and in the trench (see Fig. 2B).
AAPA does not disclose forming a patterned photoresist layer over the isolation layer; depositing a dielectric layer over the patterned photoresist layer and the isolation layer; removing a portion of the dielectric layer to form a structure over the isolation layer, wherein the removing the portion of the dielectric layer exposes the patterned photoresist layer and exposes a portion of the isolation layer; after removing the portion of the dielectric layer, forming the trench; and after removing the patterned photoresist layer, forming the conductive pad, wherein the conductive pad adjoins top and side surfaces of the structure.
Hen discloses depositing a dielectric layer and removing a portion of the dielectric layer to form a structure (a “silicon dioxide layer 4 . . . is deposited . . . and etching step is performed with a first mask to remove [a portion of] the oxide layer 4 . . . to release the stress of wire bonding” in Fig. 4 of Hen; ¶ 0026) beneath conductive layers (5 in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a dielectric layer and remove a portion of the dielectric layer to form a structure as taught by Hen over the isolation layer of AAPA for the benefit of reducing stress on the conductive layer (¶ 0025 of Hen).
In the resulting method, the conductive pad will adjoin top and side surfaces of the structure and have a horizontal portion landing on the isolation layer and on the structure (see rendering of the combination of AAPA and Hen, below).
With regards to the horizontal portion having a greater width than that of the structure, this feature amounts a change in the relative size of the components. As there is nothing in the record to indicate that decreasing the relative width of the structure such that the horizontal portion extends a greater width than that of the structure would result in a device that performing differently, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for decreasing the relative width of the structure such that the horizontal portion extends a greater width than that of the structure. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
In the resulting configuration in which the horizontal portion extends a greater width than that of the structure, the structure spans a smaller width of than the isolation layer and, therefore, the conductive pad directly interfaces with top and side surfaces of structure and a top surface of the isolation layer.
AAPA in view of Hen does not disclose that the method steps for forming and patterning the dielectric layer involve the use of a photoresist layer.
Dang discloses forming dielectric layers by forming a patterned photoresist layer (104 in Fig. 1B of Dang);
depositing a dielectric layer (108 in Fig. 1C) over the patterned photoresist layer;
removing a portion of the dielectric layer to form a structure (see Fig. 1D), wherein the removing the portion of the dielectric layer exposes the patterned photoresist layer (see Fig. 1D); and
removing the photoresist layer (Col. 2, Lines 35-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use the photoresist deposition steps as taught by Dang in the method of the combination of AAPA in view of Hen for the benefit of the photoresist pattern protecting the underlying features from damage during the removal of the portion of the dielectric layer.
With regards to the relative positions of the various layers in the method of the combination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the patterned photoresist layer over the isolation layer for the benefit of allowing the structure to be closer to the conductive pad, thereby optimizing its ability to release stress when wire bonding to the conductive pad. Similarly, the dielectric layer (and thereby the structure formed by it) would be deposited over the patterned photoresist layer and the isolation layer.
Further, as the resulting dielectric layer is formed over the patterned photoresist layer, removing the portion of the dielectric layer would, therefore, expose the patterned photoresist layer and expose a portion of the isolation layer.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the conductive pad over the structure in the method of the combination so as to provide stress release while not interfering with any electrical connection between the conductive pad and subsequently applied wire bonds (as the structure is non-conducting silicon dioxide, ¶ 0026 of Hen).
Regarding whether the formation of the trench occurs before or after the removing the portion of the dielectric layer in the method of the combination, the Examiner notes that the formation of the trench may occur before the formation of the structure (i.e., by forming the trench, depositing the dielectric layer, then patterning the dielectric layer into the structure) or after the formation of the structure (i.e., by depositing the dielectric layer and patterning the dielectric layer into the structure before forming the trench). Choosing between A) forming the trench first and then removing the portion of the dielectric layer or B) removing the portion of the dielectric layer first and then forming the trench therefore amounts to the selection of the order of process steps and the courts have held that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C), citing In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)).
PNG
media_image2.png
773
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combination of AAPA, Hen, and Dang discloses the method of claim 8, as discussed above. Dang further discloses that the removing of the portion of the dielectric layer includes removing horizontal portions of the dielectric layer (see Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of AAPA, Hen, and Dang discloses the method of claim 8, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses that the conductive pad is further formed on an exposed top surface of the interconnect layer (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of AAPA, Hen, and Dang discloses the method of claim 8, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses before forming the isolation layer, forming an interlayer dielectric layer (204) over the interconnect layer.
Regarding claim 12, in the resulting configuration of the combination of AAPA, Hen, and Dang as discussed in the rejection of claim 8, above, in which the structure spans a smaller width than the isolation layer such that the conductive pad directly interfaces with top and side surfaces of the structure and a top surface of the isolation layer, the horizontal portion will have a first height above the structure and a second height above the isolation layer, wherein the first height is greater than the second height because the height of the conductive pad decreases when less material is formed under it (see, e.g., the height of the conductive pad in the trench).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of AAPA, Hen, and Dang discloses the method of claim 12, as discussed above. AAPA further discloses bonding a conductive ball (210) with the horizontal portion of the conductive pad.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of AAPA, Hen, and Dang discloses the method of claim 8, as discussed above. Hen and Dang further both disclose that the dielectric layer includes an oxide material (¶ 0026 of Hen; Col. 4, Line 24 of Dang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that AAPA in view of Hen does not disclose or render obvious the newly added limitations to claim 1. This argument is not persuasive as the newly added limitations to claim 1 amount to an obvious change in the relative sizes/shapes of components of the device, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Applicant further argues that AAPA in view of Hen does not disclose or render obvious “forming a non-conducting stress-releasing structure over the isolation layer” because AAPA discloses an isolation layer but not a non-conducting stress-releasing structure and Hen discloses a non-conducting stress-releasing structure but not an isolation layer. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that “there is no suggestion or motivation to place the oxide layer 4 [of Hen] on an isolation layer”. This argument is not persuasive as the motivation for the combination was provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant argues that AAPA in view of Hen does not disclose or render obvious the newly added limitations to claim 8. This argument is not persuasive as the newly added limitations to claim 8 amount to an obvious change in the relative sizes/shapes of components of the device, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8, above.
Applicant further argues that AAPA in view of Hen does not disclose or render obvious “forming a non-conducting stress-releasing structure over the isolation layer” because AAPA discloses an isolation layer but not a non-conducting stress-releasing structure and Hen discloses a non-conducting stress-releasing structure but not an isolation layer. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that “there is no suggestion or motivation to place the oxide layer 4 [of Hen] on an isolation layer”. This argument is not persuasive as the motivation for the combination was provided in the rejection of claim 8.
Applicant argues that AAPA in view of Hen does not disclose or render obvious the newly added limitations to claim 15. This argument is not persuasive as the newly added limitations to claim 15 amount to an obvious change in the relative shape/sizes of components of the device, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15, above.
Applicant further argues that AAPA in view of Hen does not disclose or render obvious “forming a non-conducting stress-releasing structure over the isolation layer” because AAPA discloses an isolation layer but not a non-conducting stress-releasing structure and Hen discloses a non-conducting stress-releasing structure but not an isolation layer. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that “there is no suggestion or motivation to place the oxide layer 4 [of Hen] on an isolation layer”. This argument is not persuasive as the motivation for the combination was provided in the rejection of claim 15.
Applicant further argues that the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations of claim 12. This argument is not persuasive as the limitations of claim 12 result in the newly proposed combination of AAPA, Hen, and Dang of claim 8 in which the relative width of the structure is decreased. Further, this newly proposed combination of AAPA, Hen, and Dang in which the relative width of the structure is decreased was necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
1 Figs. 2A-2C of Applicant’s submitted Drawings are described as “the conventional bonding pad structure in the current art for an image sensor device” (¶ 0008 of Applicant’ Specification as originally filed). The subject matter of Figs. 2A-2C is therefore presumed to be prior art as it has been held that when subject matter is described by the Applicant as “’conventional’ . . . the USPTO should be permitted to presume that it is ‘prior art’ absent an express denial by applicant.” (Ex parte Ji-Young Lee, No. 2006-2328 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2007) at 42).
2 Figs. 2A-2C of Applicant’s submitted Drawings are described as “the conventional bonding pad structure in the current art for an image sensor device” (¶ 0008 of Applicant’ Specification as originally filed). The subject matter of Figs. 2A-2C is therefore presumed to be prior art as it has been held that when subject matter is described by the Applicant as “’conventional’ . . . the USPTO should be permitted to presume that it is ‘prior art’ absent an express denial by applicant.” (Ex parte Ji-Young Lee, No. 2006-2328 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2007) at 42).
Prosecution Insights