DETAILED ACTION
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 Group I, i.e., Claims 1-16 and 32-33 in the reply filed on November 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 17, 2025. Accordingly, claims 17-31 have been canceled by applicant.
Drawings
Figure Figs 1-2C should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 12, 16, 32 and 33 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A method of manufacturing a redistribution layer for an integrated circuit, comprising the steps of: forming a first insulating layer on a conductive interconnection layer of a wafer; forming a conductive body in electrical contact with said conductive interconnection layer; covering said conductive body with an insulating region having an aperture that exposes a surface of the conductive body; covering said surface of the conductive body and the insulating region with an insulating dielectric protection layer having a thickness less than 100 nm and configured to provide a protection against one or more of oxidation and corrosion of said conductive body” in lines 1-3.
However, Applicant uses both “the” and “said” throughout the claims in order to establish proper antecedent basis. However, such usage confuses the claim language. Applicant is advised to use either “the” or “said” consistently throughout the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Similar changes should be applied for claims 4-6, 11, 12, 15, 32 and 33.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “”
Claim 5 recites “electrically contacting the conductive body through the first and second passing holes” in line 8.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “forming a conductive pillar within said first and second passing holes which is in electrical contact with the conductive body; or carrying out a wire bonding operation on the exposed surface of the conductive body” in lines
Claim 6 recites the limitation “forming a conductive pillar within said first and second passing holes which is in electrical contact with the conductive body” in lines 2-3.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “electrically contacting the conductive body through the first and second passing holes” in line 8.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “forming a conductive pillar within said first and second passing holes” in line 2.
However, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “said first and second passing holes” and “the first and second passing holes” in the claims.
Changing “said first and second passing holes” and “the first and second passing holes” to -- said first passing hole and said second passing hole-- in order to provide proper antecedent basis and constancy throughout the claims.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in reviewing the claims’ structure to ensure proper claim construction and to correct any subsequently discovered instances of claim language noncompliance. See Morton International Inc., 28USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (CAFC, 1993).
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 14 and 16 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “The method of claim 13, wherein said photosensitive insulating layer is made of a material selected from the group consisting of: polyimide, PBO, Epoxy, and photosensitive organic material” in lines 1-3.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “The method of claim 15, wherein said photosensitive insulating layer is made of a material selected from the group consisting of: polyimide, PBO, Epoxy, and photosensitive organic material” in lines 1-3.
However, there is lack of clarity for “PBO” in the meaning and scope.
It is not clear the acronym/abbreviation “PBO” stands.
Since the speciation does not clearly define what “PBO” stands, there is a great deal of speculation and uncertainty what “PBO” entails.
Is it “PBO’ stands for Project Benefit Obligation (PBO)?
Is it “PBO’ stands for Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO)?
Is it “PBO” stands for Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO)?
Is it “PBO” stands for Polybutylene Oxide (PBO)? And set forth.
Therefore, claims 14 and 15 are lacking clarity in the meaning and scope and the claims are 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 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.
Claims 1-13, 15, 32 and 33 are allowed over prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “covering said surface of the conductive body and the insulating region with an insulating dielectric protection layer having a thickness less than 100 nm and configured to provide a protection against one or more of oxidation and corrosion of said conductive body,” as recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-13 and 15 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed intendent bas claim.
Claim 32 is allowed as being linking claim to the allowed independent base claim 1.
Claim 33 is allowed as being directly dependent to the allowed claim 32.
Re Claims 1 and 32, Applicant’s admitted prior art Fig. 2C, disclose all the claimed limitation of claims 1 and 32 except the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 1.
Hsiung et al. (US 2004/02141978) also disclose an interconnection structure similar to the of the instant application. However, Hsiung et al. do not disclose the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 1.
Chang et al. (US 2018/0337051) and Kuo et al. (US 2020/0105592) also disclose similar inventive subject matter. However, the prior art does not disclose the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure SCIARRILLO et al. (US 2022/0384371) and MOLGG et al. (US 2025/0273606), i.e., co-pending application Nos. 17/750,945 and 19/055,015 appears having common inventor/assignee. However, the co-pending application do not have the same features that indicated in the aforementioned allowable subject matter of the instant application.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 5:00 PM.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
January 17, 2026