DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/14/2025.
Currently, claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 9-16 remain withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-8 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 1 has been amended to recite the limitation “wherein said second line does not overlap said first line in a vertical direction”. It is not clear what is meant by the term “overlap … in a vertical direction”. For example, “overlap in a vertical direction” may refer to two objects that each have at least a portion in a same horizontal plane, as the vertical direction is the direction that determines overlap. An example of this scenario is provided below, with the z-direction being the vertical direction:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On the other hand, “overlap in a vertical direction” may refer to the perspective from which overlap may be observed. In this case, two objects that each have at least a portion in a same vertical plane may be interpreted to overlap in a vertical direction. An example of this scenario is provided below, with the z-direction being the vertical direction:
PNG
media_image2.png
400
889
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is not clear to which of these scenarios, or perhaps another different scenario, “overlap in a vertical direction” refers.
Claims 2-8 recite the same limitation via dependency.
Additionally, claim 7 recites the limitation “a first spacing is between said end and said second line”. Although this does not reference the spacing in claim 1, it does appear that it refers to the same spacing, as they are both described as being between said end and said second line. However, without referencing the spacing of claim 1, it is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aboush (US 8,368,224). An annotated version of FIG. 2 of Aboush is provided to assist in conveying the interpretation of the Aboush reference.
PNG
media_image3.png
569
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 1, Aboush shows, with reference to FIG. 2, a semiconductor pattern, comprising:
a first line extending to one end in a first direction; and
a second line extending in a second direction perpendicular to said first direction and adjacent to said end of said first line, wherein a spacing is defined between said end and said second line in said first direction;
wherein said end of said first line is provided with a rounding feature, said first line has a width in said second direction, and said width gradually increases to a maximum width toward said end and then gradually decreases and converges to form said rounding feature at said end.
With respect to the limitation “wherein said second line does not overlap said first line in a vertical direction”, the first and second lines are formed in the RDL layer and the UBM layer, respectively (col. 3, lines 25-29), which are two planes that are separated in the vertical direction (see also FIG. 1 where 106 is the RDL layer and 101 is the UBM layer), and thus the first and second lines do not overlap in the vertical direction. This equates to the first scenario discussed above with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Alternatively, in the case of the second scenario, the device shown in FIG. 2 may be rotated 90° (i.e. what was the top surface is changed to a side surface). In this orientation, the RDL layer and the UBM layer are separated in a lateral direction. Looking at the device in plan view from this orientation there would be no overlap between the first and second lines.
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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboush.
Pertaining to claim 7, Aboush shows two third lines respectively at two sides of said first line in said second direction and extending in said first direction to connect with said second line, wherein a first spacing (“Spacing”) is between said end and said second line, a second spacing (unlabeled) is between said first line and each of said third lines (see annotated FIG. 2).
Although Aboush does not explicitly disclose the dimensions claimed in the dependent claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Aboush to use dimensions within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The dimensions of the conductive lines affect device performance. Issues such as resistivity of the lines, capacitance between the lines, and miniaturization of the device must be balanced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Aboush clearly indicates a vertical overlap between the first and second lines. Applicant cites the crossing of the first and second lines.
In response, as indicated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, it is not clear what is meant by the term “vertical overlap”. There is nothing in the claims or the disclosure that indicates that crossing lines precludes the scenario of no vertical overlap. Even so, whatever direction is considered to be “vertical” will change in a change of orientation. An orientation that is rotated 90° from the orientation of FIG. 2 has a different vertical direction from that of FIG. 2. In this orientation, there would be no overlap between the first and second lines when observed in plan view.
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 DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896