DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 08/27/2025.
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 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-17.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
The claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint regard as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 (and any dependents) recite the limitation "wherein the top part has a greater width the bottom part”. Considering other claim limitation such as the top part of the conductive bump fills the second opening and the bottom part of the conductive bumps fills the first opening, and the first opening has a greater width than the second opening, it is clear from these claim limitations that the top part has a smaller width than the bottom part or the bottom part has a greater width than the top part. For the purposes of examination to apply prior art, this was treated as the bottom part has a greater width than the top part.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Huang (US 2005/0020050) in view of Behammer (US 7445975) in further view of Lin (US 2006/0051954).
Regarding claim 1, Huang shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) most aspects of the instant invention including a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
Forming a first photoresist layer 320a on a substrate 316/310
Forming a second photoresist layer 320b on the first photoresist layer 320a
Forming a first removable region having a first width in the first photoresist layer 320a and a second removable region having a second width different from the first width in the second photoresist layer 320b by radiating exposure light to some parts of the second and first photoresist layers 320a/320b (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0020], [0021], and [0033]) (see also MPEP 2112.01)
Forming a second opening 322b in the second photoresist layer 320b and a first opening 322a in the first photoresist layer 320a by developing the second removable region and the first removable region (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0020])
Forming a conductive bump 330 that fills the first and second openings 322a/322b
wherein:
The conductive bump 330 includes a top part and a bottom part
The bottom part fills the first opening 322a
The top part fills the second opening 322b
However, Huang does not explicitly state that the first and second removable regions are dissolvable regions. Huang, however, teaches that the regions in the resist material are exposed areas of the resist film, which are removed in a developing solution (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0032] – [0033]). As such, one of ordinary skills in the art would understand the removable regions are dissolvable regions, as least because it is part of a photo-lithographic process.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the step of forming first and second dissolvable regions in the method of Huang, as taught by Huang himself, to enable the photo-lithographic process for manufacturing a semiconductor device.
Huang, however, fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) to show that the first opening 322a has a greater width than the second opening 322b. Behammer, in a similar photoresist method to Huang, teaches (see, e.g., Behammer: fig. 1d, and col.3/II. 49-58) that the first opening 10a has a greater width than the second opening 11a. Also, Behammer teaches (see, e.g., Behammer: fig. 1d, and col.3/II. 49-58) that the first opening 10a has a greater width than the second opening 11a in order to produce a resist overhang suitable for a lift-off process (see, e.g., Behammer: col.3/II. 49-58).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a first opening with a greater width than the second opening of Behammer in the method of Huang in order to produce a resist overhang suitable for a lift-off process.
The width of the first opening 322a and the width of the second opening 322b are dimensions. The relationship between these structural features (first and second openings 322a/322b) corresponds to the range of features. However, width differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the width of the first and second openings, and Behammer has identified such widths as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these width values in the device of Huang.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed width values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Huang in view of Behammer, however, fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) to show that the top part of the conductive bump 330 has a smaller width than the bottom part of the conductive bump 330. Lin, in a similar photoresist method to Huang, teaches (see, e.g., Lin: fig. 4H) that the width of the top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller width than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump 51. Also, Li shows (see, e.g., Li: fig. 4H) that top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller width than the bottom part of the conductive bump 51 in order to accommodate an underfill material in spaces between the adjacent bump structures during an underfill process, and likely to avoid voids in the spaces and the underfill process would not be affected by fine-pitch arrangement of electrical connection pads (see, e.g., Lin: par. [0045]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a structure where the width of the top part of the conductive bump has a smaller than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump of Lin in the method of Huang in view of Behammer in order to accommodate an underfill material in spaces between the adjacent bump structures during an underfill process, and likely to avoid voids in the spaces, and the underfill process would not be affected by fine-pitch arrangement of electrical connection pads.
The width of the top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump 51 are dimensions. The relationship between these structural features (the top and bottom parts of the conductive bump 51/53) corresponds to the range of features. However, width differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 17) of the width of the top and bottom parts of the conductive bump, and Lin has identified such widths as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these width values in the device of Huang in view of Behammer.
Regarding claim 2, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) that the first photoresist layer 320a comprises a photoresist different from a photoresist of the second photoresist layer 320b (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 5A-5E):
Forming a third photoresist layer 420 on the second photoresist layer 420
Forming a third dissolvable region in the third photoresist layer 420, while forming the first and second dissolvable regions
Forming a third opening 422 by developing the third dissolvable region, while forming the first and second openings 422
Forming, on the conductive bump 430, a solder layer that fills the third opening 422
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) a step of forming a plating seed layer 318 between the first photoresist layer 320a and the substrate 316/310 (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0031]), wherein the conductive bump 330 is plated (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0021]) in some part of the plating seed layer 318, which is exposed by the first and second opening 322a/322b (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 10 above). Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) shows the steps of forming a first photoresist layer 320a and a second photoresist layer 320b.
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) fails to specify that the thickness of the first photoresist layer 320a is different than the thickness of the second photoresist layer 320b.
The thickness of the first photoresist layer 320a and the thickness of the second photoresist layer 320b are dimensions. The relationship between these structural features (first and second photoresist layers 320a/320b) corresponds to the range of features. However, thickness differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin also shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) that thicknesses of the photoresist layers are determined by the volume and the height of the solder bumps fabricated by conventional bumping processes (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0012]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 17) of the thickness of the photoresist layers, and Huang has identified such thickness as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the method of Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin.
Claims 3-7, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Huang in view Behammer in view of Lin in further view of Ongayi (US 2013/0209934).
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) most aspects of the instant invention including a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising a step of forming a first photoresist layer 320a and a second photoresist layer 320b.
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) teaches the use of first and second photoresists 320a/320b with different photo-sensitivity (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]) for the purpose of etching the openings 322a/322b (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0033]). However, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) does not teach the use of polymers in the composition of the first and second photoresists 320a/320b as it is claimed. Ongayi, in a similar photoresist method to Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin, teaches that a photosensitive polymer can be used as a resist layer for etching purposes (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0001] and [0009]). Also, Ongayi teaches that the use of the photosensitive polymer is to afford high wafer throughput (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0002]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the photoresist polymer of Ongayi in the photoresist layer of Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin to afford high wafer throughput.
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that, due to different photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the first photoresist layer comprises a first polymer and the second photoresist layer comprises a second polymer (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004]).
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi show that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the first photoresist layer comprises a first photo acid generator (PAG) and the second photoresist layer comprises a second PAG (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004 and [0029]).
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the first photoresist layer comprises a first protection functionality that is combined with the first polymer and the second photoresist layer comprises a second protection functionality that is combined with the second polymer (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004] and [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi show that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the second polymer has a molecular weight different from a molecular weight of the first polymer (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi show that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the second PAG has an acid production rate different from an acid production rate of the first PAG (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi show that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), a number of second functionalities that are combined with the second polymer is different from a number of first protection functionalities that are combined with the first polymer (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004] and [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi show that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]):
The first photoresist layer further comprises a first quencher that adjust a diffusion of acid generated from the first PAG (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004]) (see also MPEP 2112.01(II))
The second photoresist layer further comprises a second quencher that has a content different from a content of the first quencher (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004])
Regarding claim 11, Huang (see, e.g., figs. 4A-4E) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
Forming a first photoresist layer 320a on a substrate 316/310
Forming a second photoresist layer 320b on the first photoresist layer 320a
Forming a first removable region having a first width in the first photoresist layer 320a and a second removable region having a second width different from the first width in the second photoresist layer 320b by radiating exposure light to some parts of the second and first photoresist layers 320a/320b (see, e.g., par. [0020], [0021], and [0033]) (see also MPEP 2112.01)
Forming a second opening 322b in the second photoresist layer 320b and a first opening 322a in the first photoresist layer 320a by developing the second removable region and the first removable region (see, e.g., par. [0020])
Forming a conductive bump 330 that fills the first and second openings 322a/322b
wherein:
The conductive bump 330 includes a top part and a bottom part
The bottom part fills the first opening 322a
The top part fills the second opening 322b
However, Huang does not explicitly state that the first and second removable regions are dissolvable regions. Huang, however, teaches that the regions in the resist material are exposed areas of the resist film, which are removed in a developing solution (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0032] – [0033]). As such, one of ordinary skills in the art would understand the removable regions are dissolvable regions, as least because it is part of a photo-lithographic process.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the step of forming first and second dissolvable regions in the method of Huang, as taught by Huang himself, to enable the photo-lithographic process for manufacturing a semiconductor device.
Huang, however, fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) to show that the first opening 322a has a greater width than the second opening 322b. Behammer, in a similar photoresist method to Huang, teaches (see, e.g., Behammer: fig. 1d, and col.3/II. 49-58) that the first opening 10a has a greater width than the second opening 11a. Also, Behammer teaches (see, e.g., Behammer: fig. 1d, and col.3/II. 49-58) that the first opening 10a has a greater width than the second opening 11a in order to produce a resist overhang suitable for a lift-off process (see, e.g., Behammer: col.3/II. 49-58).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a first opening with a greater width than the second opening of Behammer in the method of Huang in order to produce a resist overhang suitable for a lift-off process.
The width of the first opening 322a and the width of the second opening 322b are dimensions. The relationship between these structural features (first and second openings 322a/322b) corresponds to the range of features. However, width differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 17) of the width of the first and second openings, and Behammer has identified such widths as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these width values in the device of Huang.
Huang in view of Behammer, however, fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) to show that the top part of the conductive bump 330 has a smaller width than the bottom part of the conductive bump 330. Lin, in a similar photoresist method to Huang, teaches (see, e.g., Lin: fig. 4H) that the width of the top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller width than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump 51. Also, Li shows (see, e.g., Li: fig. 4H) that top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller width than the bottom part of the conductive bump 51 in order to accommodate an underfill material in spaces between the adjacent bump structures during an underfill process, and likely to avoid voids in the spaces and the underfill process would not be affected by fine-pitch arrangement of electrical connection pads (see, e.g., Lin: par. [0045]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a structure where the width of the top part of the conductive bump has a smaller than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump of Lin in the method of Huang in view of Behammer in order to accommodate an underfill material in spaces between the adjacent bump structures during an underfill process, and likely to avoid voids in the spaces, and the underfill process would not be affected by fine-pitch arrangement of electrical connection pads.
The width of the top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump 51 are dimensions. The relationship between these structural features (the top and bottom parts of the conductive bump 51/53) corresponds to the range of features. However, width differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 17) of the width of the top and bottom parts of the conductive bump, and Lin has identified such widths as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these width values in the device of Huang in view of Behammer.
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin teaches the use of first and second photoresists 320a/320b with different photosensitivity (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]) for the purpose of etching the openings 322a/322b (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0033]). However, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin does not teach the use of acid in the composition of the first and second photoresists 320a/320b that is generated by exposure light incident on the first and second photoresists 320a/320b as it is claimed. Ongayi, in a similar photoresist method to Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin, teaches that an acid is used in the photoresist layer for lithographic purposes (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0001] and [0009]) and that the acid are generated by exposure light (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0003]). Also, Ongayi teaches that the use of the acid in the photoresist layer makes the photoresist sensitive enough to afford high wafer throughput (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0002]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the acid of Ongayi in the photoresist layer of Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin to make the photoresist sensitive enough in order to afford high wafer throughput.
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayishows that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the first acid is different from the second acid (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004], [0029], and [0030]). Also, Ongayi shows that the acid is characterized by the diffusion distance (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0033]), thus Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that the first diffusion distance at which a first acid diffuses in the first photoresist is different that the second diffusion distance at which a second acid diffuses in the second photoresist.
Regarding claim 12, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E):
Forming a third photoresist layer 420 on the second photoresist layer 420
Forming a third dissolvable region in the third photoresist layer 420, while forming the first and second dissolvable regions
Forming a third opening 422 by developing the third dissolvable region, while forming the first and second openings 422
Forming, on the conductive bump 430, a solder layer that fills the third opening 422
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the third acid is different from the first and second acid (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004]). Also, Ongayi shows that the acid is characterized by the diffusion distance (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0033]), thus Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that the third diffusion distance at which a third acid diffuses in the third photoresist is different that the first diffusion distance at which a first acid diffuses in the first photoresist.
Regarding claim 13, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) shows a step of forming a plating seed layer 318 between the first photoresist layer 320a and the substrate 316/310 (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0031]), wherein the conductive bump 330 is plated (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0021]) in some part of the plating seed layer 318, which is exposed by the first and second opening 322a/322b (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 6 above). Huang shows the steps of forming a first photoresist layer 320a and a second photoresist layer 320b.
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) to specify that the thickness of the first photoresist layer 320a is different than the thickness of the second photoresist layer 320b.
The thickness of the first photoresist layer 320a and the thickness of the second photoresist layer 320b are dimensions. The relationship between these structural features (first and second photoresist layers 320a/320b) corresponds to the range of features. However, thickness differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Huang also shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) that thicknesses of the photoresist layers are determined by the designed volume and the height of the solder bumps fabricated by conventional bumping processes (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0012]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 17) of the thickness of the photoresist layers, and Huang has identified such thickness as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the method of Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi.
Regarding claim 15, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) that the first photoresist layer 320a comprises a photoresist different from a photoresist of the second photoresist layer 320b (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 16, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the first photoresist layer comprises a first polymer and the second photoresist layer comprises a second polymer (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004] and [0005]).
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the first photoresist layer comprises a first photo acid generator (PAG) and the second photoresist layer comprises a second PAG (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004] and [0029]).
Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]), the first photoresist layer comprises a first protection functionality that is combined with the first polymer and the second photoresist layer comprises a second protection functionality that is combined with the second polymer (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004] and [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Huang in view of Behammer in view of Lin in view of Ongayi shows that, in light of the difference between the photo-sensitivities of the first and second photoresists (see, e.g., Huang: par. [0019]):
The first photoresist layer further comprises a first quencher that adjust a diffusion of acid generated from the first PAG (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004]) (see also MPEP 2112.01(II))
The second photoresist layer further comprises a second quencher that has a content different from a content of the first quencher (see, e.g., Ongayi: par. [0004])
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the old and new grounds of rejection.
The applicants argue:
Huang fails to anticipates or otherwise render obvious that “… wherein the conductive bump includes a top part and a bottom part, wherein the bottom part fills the first opening, wherein the top part fills the second opening, wherein the first opening has a greater width than the second opening, and wherein the top part has a greater width the bottom part …”, as recited in exemplary claims 1 and 11.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new and old grounds of rejection, Huang shows (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) that:
The conductive bump 330 includes a top part and a bottom part
The bottom part fills the first opening 322a
The top part fills the second opening 322b
Huang, however, fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) to show that the first opening 322a has a greater width than the second opening 322b. Behammer, in a similar photoresist method to Huang, teaches (see, e.g., Behammer: fig. 1d, and col.3/II. 49-58) that the first opening 10a has a greater width than the second opening 11a. Also, Behammer teaches (see, e.g., Behammer: fig. 1d, and col.3/II. 49-58) that the first opening 10a has a greater width than the second opening 11a in order to produce a resist overhang suitable for a lift-off process (see, e.g., Behammer: col.3/II. 49-58).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a first opening with a greater width than the second opening of Behammer in the method of Huang in order to produce a resist overhang suitable for a lift-off process.
The width of the first opening 322a and the width of the second opening 322b are dimensions. The relationship between these structural features (first and second openings 322a/322b) corresponds to the range of features. However, width differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 17) of the width of the first and second openings, and Behammer has identified such widths as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these width values in the device of Huang.
Huang in view of Behammer, however, fails (see, e.g., Huang: figs. 4A-4E) to show that the top part of the conductive bump 330 has a smaller width than the bottom part of the conductive bump 330. Lin, in a similar photoresist method to Huang, teaches (see, e.g., Lin: fig. 4H) that the width of the top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller width than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump 51. Also, Li shows (see, e.g., Li: fig. 4H) that top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller width than the bottom part of the conductive bump 51 in order to accommodate an underfill material in spaces between the adjacent bump structures during an underfill process, and likely to avoid voids in the spaces and the underfill process would not be affected by fine-pitch arrangement of electrical connection pads (see, e.g., Lin: par. [0045]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a structure where the width of the top part of the conductive bump has a smaller than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump of Lin in the method of Huang in view of Behammer in order to accommodate an underfill material in spaces between the adjacent bump structures during an underfill process, and likely to avoid voids in the spaces, and the underfill process would not be affected by fine-pitch arrangement of electrical connection pads.
The width of the top part of the conductive bump 53 has a smaller than the width of the bottom part of the conductive bump 51 are dimensions. The relationship between these structural features (the top and bottom parts of the conductive bump 51/53) corresponds to the range of features. However, width differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph 17) of the width of the top and bottom parts of the conductive bump, and Lin has identified such widths as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these width values in the device of Huang in view of Behammer.
Conclusion
This action is made final. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email 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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814