Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/152,502

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEVICE AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 10, 2023
Examiner
TRAN, TRANG Q
Art Unit
2811
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
579 granted / 716 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
750
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
36.1%
-3.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 716 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 09/02/2025 is acknowledged. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2023 and 11/16/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-3 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haba et al. (US 2005/0040540). As for claim 1, Haba et al. disclose in Fig. 4 and the related text a method comprising: depositing solder paste 70 over first contact pads 64 of a first package component 62 [0034]; aligning spring connectors 30 of a second package component 20 to the solder paste 64 [0034]; and reflowing the solder paste to electrically and physically couple the spring connectors 30 of the second package component 20 to the first contact pads 64 of the first package component 62 ([0034], [0035]). As for claim 2, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: depositing an underfill 68/[0036] extending between the first package component 62 and the second package component 20 (Fig. 4). As for claim 3, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: depositing second solder paste 44 over second contact pads 24 of the second package component (fig. 4, [0034], [0035]); aligning the spring connectors 30 to the second solder paste 44, the spring connectors attached to a carrier (support, [0046]), the spring connectors comprising microsprings (Fig. 4); reflowing the second solder paste 44 to electrically and physically couple the spring connectors to the second solder paste (fig. 4, [0034]); and detaching the spring connectors from the carrier [0046]. As for claim 21, Haba et al. disclose in Fig. 4 and the related text a method comprising: depositing a first solder paste (left/right 70) over a first contact pad (left/right 64) of a first package component 62 [0034]; depositing a solder material (middle 70) over a second contact pad (middle 64) of the first package component 62; depositing a spring coil 30 on the first solder paste (fig. 4, [0034]); reflowing the first solder paste to connect the spring coil to the first contact pad [0034]; reflowing the solder material to connect the solder material to the second contact pad [0034]; depositing a second solder paste 44 to a third contact pad (left/right 24) of a second package component 20 (fig. 4, [0034] and [0035]); aligning the third contact pad (left/right 24) of the second package component 20 to the spring coil 30 and a fourth contact pad (middle 24) of the second package component to the solder material (middle 64 (fig. 4); reflowing the second solder paste 44 to connect the spring coil 30 to the third contact pad ([0034], [0035]); and reflowing the solder material 70 to (electrically) connect the solder material (middle 70) to the fourth contact pad (middle 24) (Fig. 4, [0034] and [0035]). As for claim 22, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 21, wherein the second contact pad (middle 64) is in a center region of the first package component 62 (Fig. 4). As for claim 23, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 21, wherein the first contact pad (left/right 64) is in a corner region of the first package component (fig. 4). As for claim 24, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 21, further comprising: forming an underfill 68/[0036] between the first package component and the second package component (fig. 4). As for claim 25, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 21, further comprising, prior to aligning, depositing a third solder paste 44 on the fourth contact pad ([0028]-[0034]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al. in view of Bae (US 2022/0214381) and Ye et al. (2016/0113144). As for claims 4-5, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 1, except taking one or more x-ray images of joints between the spring connectors and the solder paste; after finding one or more defective joints in the one or more x-ray images, performing a second reflow process to correct the one or more defective joints. Bae teaches in [0047] an image capture after the solder joint assembly. Ye et al. teach in [0026] performing a second reflow process to correct the one or more defective joints of solder material. Haba et al. and Bae are analogous art because they both are directed microelectronic devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Haba et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Haba et al. to include an image of solder joint as taught by Bae and performing a second reflow process to correct the one or more defective joints as taught by Ye et al., in order to prevent defective connections (Ye et al. [0026]). Haba et al. in view Bae do not teach the image is x-ray. However, it is obvious to include x-ray images of joints between the spring connectors and the solder paste in the combined device, in order to reduce cost. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hortaleza (US 2007/0085220). As for claim 6, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: forming a solder material (middle 70) over a second contact pad (middle 64) of the first package component 62; and during reflowing the solder paste, reflowing the solder to form a solder connection (middle 70) between the first package component 62 and the second package component 20. Haba et al. do not disclose the solder is solder ball. Hortaleza teaches Fig. 6 and the related text a solder is solder ball. Baha et al. and Hortaleza are analogous art because they both are directed semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Baha et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Baha et al. to include the shape of the solder as taught by Hortaleza, in order to achieve desired high-density, reliable, high-performance device properties. As for claim 7, Haba et al. and Hortaleza disclose the method of claim 6, Haba et al. further disclose the second contact pad is at a corner of a package region of the first package component or wherein the second contact pad (middle 64) is at a center of a package region of the first package component 62 (Fig. 4). Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al. in view of Yu et al. (US 2024/0039185). As for claim 8, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the spring connectors 30 maintain a minimum distance between the first package component and the second package component (fig. 4), wherein warpage in the first package component or the second package component causes one or more of the spring connectors to deform. Yu et al. teach in [0012] shape of a package component causes one or more of the spring connectors to deform. Haba et al. and Yu et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Haba et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Haba et al. to teach as taught by warpage in the first package component or the second package component causes one or more of the spring connectors to deform in order to secure the packages (Yu et al. [0012]). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al. As for claim 9, Haba et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first package component is an integrated fan out device and wherein the second package component includes an integrated voltage regulator. Haba et al. teach the first package component and the second package component are microelectronic chips. Haba et al. do not explicitly teach the first package component is an integrated fan out device and wherein the second package component includes an integrated voltage regulator. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the first package component is an integrated fan out device and wherein the second package component includes an integrated voltage regulator in Haba et al. at least for operation purposes. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-15 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited art, whether taken singularly or in combination, especially when all limitations are considered within the claimed specific combination, fails to teach or render obvious “aligning first connectors of a first device to the first contact pads and aligning second connectors of a second device to the second contact pads, the first connectors and the second connectors comprising spring coils; reflowing the solder paste to electrically and physically couple the first connectors to the first contact pads and the second connectors to the second contact pads; removing the carrier substrate from the workpiece; and singulating the workpiece to form a first package and a second package, the first package including the first device, the second package including the second device”, as recited in claim 10. Claims 11-15 depend on allowable claim 10. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3259. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 5712721670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TRANG Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 10, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604504
Shielding Structure for Silicon Carbide Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593684
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE INCLUDING HEAT DISSIPATION STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593699
PACKAGE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581929
Semiconductor Devices and Methods for Forming a Semiconductor Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12557672
ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 716 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month