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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 8/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/25/2025.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “generally rectangular prism shape”. The metes and bounds of this limitation is not clear. Does the applicant mean that a portion of the base structure is rectangular prism shape or the whole base portion is rectangular prism shape. The limitation may also be interpretated as the structure doesn’t has to be perfectly “rectangular prism shape”. Thus, the claim language is indefinite and hence rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mishra et al. (US 2020/0035633 A1).
Re Claim 1, Mishra teaches an electronic device (200, Fig. 2F, para [0018]) comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (202, Fig. 2F, para [0018]);
a conductive structure (204, Fig. 2F, para [0018]) disposed over the semiconductor substrate (202);
an insulator layer (206, Fig. 2F, para [0018]) overlying the semiconductor substrate with a tapered opening (see Fig. 2F) overlying a portion of the conductive structure (204); and
a flanged conductive column (208+214+216, Fig. 2F, para [0020], [0026] and [0029]) having a base portion (marked “base portion” in annotated Fig. 2F below) disposed in the tapered opening (tapered opening of 206, see Fig. 2F) and coupled to the portion of the conductive structure (204) and a flanged portion (216, Fig. 2F, para [0026]) being configured to be exposed to provide a conductive contact to the electronic device (see Fig. 2F).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, Mishra teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the flanged conductive column (208+214+216) comprises a solder coated flanged copper column (208 are copper pillars, para [0021], which is coated with 214 which is heat treated solder layer, para [0029]).
Re Claim 4, Mishra teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor substrate (202) contains electronic circuitry (microelectronic device is formed on the substrate, para [0018]) and is formed from a portion of a semiconductor wafer (202 can be a semiconductor wafer, para [0018]).
Re Claim 5, Mishra teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the insulator layer (206) is formed from polyimide (206 can be polyimide, para [0018]).
Re Claim 6, Mishra teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising an encapsulation material layer (226, Fig. 2F, para [0032]) that overlies the insulator layer (206) and encapsulates the flanged conductive column (208+214+216) leaving a mounting surface of the flanged conductive column exposed (top surface of 216 is exposed, Fig. 2F) and extending beyond the encapsulation material layer (see Fig. 2F) to provide a conductive contact to the electronic device (200).
Re Claim 8, Mishra teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the encapsulation material layer (226) is a mold compound (226 can be an epoxy mold compound, paras [0032] and [0017]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US 2020/0035633 A1), and further in view of over Lin et al. (US 2015/0171038 A1).
Re Claim 3, Mishra teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein each of the base portion (“base portion”, see annotated Fig. 2F above) and the flanged portion (216) of the solder coated flanged conductive column have a generally rectangular shape (both “base portion” and 216 are rectangular in the side-view, see Fig. 2F).
Mishra does not show a top view of the bump structure and hence it doesn’t explicitly show that the base portion and the flanged portion are rectangular prism shaped.
However, in a related semiconductor art, Lin shows that the bump structure can be rectangular in a top view (compare Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, that the base portion and the flanged portion of the conductive column of Mishra can have a rectangular shape both in the side-view (disclosed by Mishra) and in the top-view (disclosed by Lin), thus making it a rectangular prism. The selection of a known shape based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination as established in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US 2020/0035633 A1), and further in view of over Meyer-Berg et al. (US 2010/0127386 A1).
Re Claim 7, Mishra teaches the electronic device of claim 6, but does not disclose that the encapsulation material layer is a laminate.
However, in a related semiconductor art, Meyer-Berg teaches that the encapsulation material can be any thermosetting material or laminate and may contain filler materials, an may be deposited by molding, potting, dispensing, jetting or lamination (para [0021]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, that the encapsulation material layer of Mishra can be a laminate as disclosed by Meyer-Berg. The substitution of a known material for its known purpose to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination as established in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898