Attorney’s Docket Number: AD6429-US
Filing Date: 12/24/2021
Inventors: Kong et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendments/arguments filed on 3/27/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 3/27/2026, responding to the Office action mailed 12/29/2025, has been entered. Applicant amended claim 1 and cancelled claims 16-21. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-15.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments to the claims have failed to overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 12/29/2025. The Applicant’s response filed 3/27/2026 argues that Chou fails to disclose a vertical lip including a horizontal feature that extends toward a center of the contact surface, but this feature is shown within Chou (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1 below). It’s noted that the vertical lip feature extends horizontally in both directions, hence it extends both toward a center and away from the center of the contact surface, as opposed to extending exclusively away from the contact surface, as argued. The “extends away” configuration, as argued by the applicant with arrows demonstrating the vertical lip extends horizontally away from the contact surface, can also be reproduced to show how the vertical lip extends horizontally toward the center of the contact surface (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 8-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Chou (US 20210066225 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows all aspects of the instant invention including an electronic assembly (e.g., integrated chip 500) comprising:
A semiconductor circuit substrate (e.g., carrier substrate 102);
A metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116 + paragraph 18) integrated onto the semiconductor circuit substrate (e.g., carrier substrate 102), the metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116) having a contact surface (e.g., contact surface, see annotated fig. 2) to make electrical contact with a trace through a dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 120) over the semiconductor circuit substrate (e.g., carrier substrate 102) and over (e.g., note that dielectric layer 120 is disposed over both the substrate and the contact) the metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116), the metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116) including a vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion, see annotated fig. 2) extending vertically into the dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 120) above the contact surface (e.g., contact surface, see included figure), the vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion, see annotated fig. 2) including a horizontal feature that extends toward (e.g., note that the horizontal layout of the contact portion extends toward the contact surface of bond pad 116) a center of the contact surface (e.g., contact surface, see annotated fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
682
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 2, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows the metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116) comprises copper (see e.g., paragraph 17 “The bond pad 116 includes an upper conductive body 116a and conductive protrusions 116b underlying the upper conductive body 116a” + paragraph 18 “The upper conductive body 116a comprises … (e.g., aluminum copper)…”).
Regarding claim 8, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows the vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion, see, e.g., annotated fig. 2) comprises a first vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion 1, see annotated fig. 2) and further comprising a second vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion 2, see annotated fig. 2) extending vertically into the dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 120) above the contact surface (e.g., contact surface, see annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a computer system (e.g., integrated chip 500) comprising:
An integrated circuit (see, e.g., paragraph 29 “…application specific integrated circuit…”) processed (see, e.g., paragraph 29 “…the ASIC substrate 301 may be configured as the carrier substrate 102…”) onto a substrate (ASIC substrate 301);
A metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116) integrated onto the semiconductor circuit substrate (e.g., carrier substrate 102), the metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116) having a contact surface (e.g., contact surface, see included figure) to make electrical contact with a trace through a dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 120) over the semiconductor circuit substrate (e.g., carrier substrate 102) and the metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116), the metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116) including a vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion, see included figure) extending vertically into the dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 120) above the contact surface (e.g., contact surface, see included figure), and
A trace (e.g., conductive wire 124) to connect (see, e.g., paragraph 18) a package pad (e.g., electrical connector pad 122) to the metallic contact (e.g., bond pad 116);
Regarding claim 14, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows the vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion) comprises a first vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion 1, see annotated fig. 2) and further comprising a second vertical lip (e.g., extended contact portion 2, see annotated fig. 2) extending vertically into the dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 120) above the contact surface (e.g., contact surface, see annotated fig. 2).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 3, 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Lin (US 9704818 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) fails to show the vertical lip comprises a vertical structure having a tapered edge, with the vertical lip becoming larger as the vertical lip extends farther away from the semiconductor circuit substrate.
Lin (see, e.g., fig. 9), in a similar device to Chou, teaches a vertical lip (e.g., interconnect structure 106) comprises a vertical structure having a tapered edge, with the vertical lip becoming larger as the vertical lip extends farther away from the semiconductor circuit substrate (note that interconnect structure 106 grows at an angle, increasing in width as it extends away from bond pad 102 and substrate 101).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the bond pad of Chou to include the technical feature of the interconnect structure of Lin, for the purpose of extending the bond pad’s conductive properties and electrically connect the bond pad to other conductive layers (see, e.g., paragraphs 13 or 30 of Lin).
Regarding claim 6, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) fails to show the vertical lip has a scalloped edge.
Lin (see, e.g., fig. 9), in a similar device to Chou, teaches a vertical lip (e.g., interconnect structure 106) comprises a vertical structure having a tapered edge, with the vertical lip becoming larger as the vertical lip extends farther away from the semiconductor circuit substrate (note that interconnect structure 106 grows at an angle, increasing in width as it extends away from bond pad 102 and substrate 101).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the interconnect structure of Chou in view of Lin to include the technical feature of a scalloped edge, for the purpose of extending the bond pad’s conductive properties and electrically connect the bond pad to other conductive layers (see, e.g., paragraphs 13 or 30 of Lin). Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have had success in making this modification because Lin further teaches that the conception and specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures or processes for carrying out the same purposes of the present disclosure (see paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 10, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) fails to show the vertical lip comprises a vertical structure having a tapered edge, with the vertical lip becoming larger as the vertical lip extends farther away from the semiconductor circuit substrate.
Lin (see, e.g., fig. 9), in a similar device to Chou, teaches a vertical lip (e.g., interconnect structure 106) comprises a vertical structure having a tapered edge, with the vertical lip (e.g., interconnect structure 106) becoming larger as the vertical lip extends farther away from the semiconductor circuit substrate (note that interconnect structure 106 grows at an angle, increasing in width as it extends away from bond pad 102 and substrate 101).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the bond pad of Chou to include the technical feature of the interconnect structure of Lin, for the purpose of extending the bond pad’s conductive properties and electrically connect the bond pad to other conductive layers (see paragraph 13 of Lin).
Regarding claim 12, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) fails to show the vertical lip has a scalloped edge.
Lin (see, e.g., fig. 9), in a similar device to Chou, teaches a vertical lip (e.g., interconnect structure 106) comprises a vertical structure having a tapered edge, with the vertical lip (e.g., interconnect structure 106) becoming larger as the vertical lip extends farther away from the semiconductor circuit substrate (note that interconnect structure 106 grows at an angle, increasing in width as it extends away from bond pad 102 and substrate 101).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the interconnect structure of Chou in view of Lin to include the technical feature of a scalloped edge, for the purpose of extending the bond pad’s conductive properties and electrically connect the bond pad to other conductive layers (see, e.g., paragraph 30 of Lin). Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have had success in making this modification because Lin further teaches that the conception and specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures or processes for carrying out the same purposes of the present disclosure (see paragraph 25).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Lin further in view of Rinne (US 20050215045 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Chou in view of Lin fails to teach wherein the vertical lip has a cutout from a photoresist exposed at an acute angle.
Rinne (see, e.g., figs. 1-2), in a similar device to Chou in view of Lin, teaches forming a vertical lip (e.g., barrier metal 83 + bump metal 103) has a cutout from a photoresist (e.g., photoresist template 101 + paragraph 29) exposed at an acute angle (see, e.g., figs 1-2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the photoresist cutout of Rinne within the device of Chou in view of Lin, in order to achieve the expected result of changing the slanted configuration as needed to form the extended protrusion portion of Chou in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 11, Chou in view of Lin fails to teach wherein the vertical lip has an under-etch cutout between a top of the vertical lip and a bottom of the vertical lip or wherein the vertical lip has a cutout from a photoresist exposed at an acute angle.
Rinne (see, e.g., figs. 1-2), in a similar device to Chou in view of Lin, teaches forming a vertical lip (e.g., barrier metal 83 + bump metal 103) has a cutout from a photoresist (e.g., photoresist template 101 + paragraph 29) exposed at an acute angle (see, e.g., figs 1-2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the photoresist cutout of Rinne within the device of Chou in view of Lin, in order to achieve the expected result of changing the slanted configuration as needed to form the extended protrusion portion of Chou in view of Lin.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Krishnatreya (US 20220102305 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Chou (see, e.g., fig. 5) fails to show a multicore host processor coupled to the integrated circuit, a display communicatively coupled to a processor, a network interface communicatively coupled to a processor, or a battery to power the computer system.
Krishnatreya (see, e.g., fig. 38), in a similar device to Chou, teaches a multicore host processor (e.g., processing device 1802), a display (e.g., display device 1806) communicatively coupled to a processor, a network interface (e.g., communication chip 1812) communicatively coupled to a processor, and a battery (e.g., battery/power 1814) to power the computer system (e.g., electrical device 1800).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the battery of Krishnatreya to achieve the expected result of providing a power supply to the integrated chip of Chou.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, the primary art of record, Chou in view of Lin, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the vertical lip has an under-etch cutout between a top of the vertical lip and a bottom of the vertical lip. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 7, the primary art of record, Chou, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the vertical lip has a ribbed edge having multiple etched cutouts. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, the primary art of record, Chou, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the vertical lip has a ribbed edge having multiple etched cutouts. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights