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
Status of Claims
1. Applicant's amendment of claims 1, 16, and 21 in “Claims - 01/27/2026” with “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 01/27/2026”, have been acknowledged by Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-8 and 16-27 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 8 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-7, 16-19, and 21-27 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 01/27/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following: the Applicant's amendment of claims 1, 16, and 21 necessitated the shift in new grounds of rejection detailed in sections below. The shift in grounds of rejection renders the Applicant's arguments moot.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims below.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 16-19, 21-23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuo et al. (US 20120261826 A1; hereinafter Kuo).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo teaches an interconnect structure on a semiconductor die (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0010+], and as cited below), comprising:
a lower conductive layer (see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]; hereinafter lower conductive layer);
an upper conductive layer (see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]; hereinafter upper conductive layer) disposed above the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]); and
a vertical interconnect assembly (VIA) ({161, 162, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) disposed between the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) that provides a conduction path between the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (lower upper layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]),
the VIA ({161, 162, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) comprising:
a primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) that physically contacts the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]); and
a sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) that physically contacts the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]), is disposed around the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) and separated a distance (see Fig. 9) from the primary interconnect structure ({162}).
As per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In regards to “a sacrificial stress barrier ring”, Kuo teaches the same structure of claim 1 as detailed above. Thus, Kuo teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 2, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kuo further teaches wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A),
a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape (see Fig. 9),
the first geometric shape ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) has one of a square shape, a circular shape, an oval shape, or a closed polygonal shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A), and
the second geometric shape ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) has a one or a square shape, a circular shape, an oval shape, or a closed polygonal shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A).
Regarding claim 3, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kuo further teaches wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; cross- sectional portion of 162/165), a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; cross- sectional portion of 161/164), and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a square shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; cross- sectional portion of 162/165; cross- sectional portion of 161/164), both have a circular shape, both have an oval shape, or both have a closed polygonal shape.
Regarding claim 4, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) includes an outer perimeter (Ppo);
the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) includes both an inner perimeter (RIp) and an outer perimeter (Rop); and
the outer perimeter (Ppo) of the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) does not touch or intersect the inner perimeter (RIp) of the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises one layer of a back-end-of-line (BEOL) interconnect structure in a die; and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises a higher layer in the BEOL interconnect structure in the die.
Regarding claim 7, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises an upper layer in a back-end-of-line (BEOL) interconnect structure in a die; and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises a redistribution layer (RDL) that connects the lower conductive layer to another die or chip packaging pins in the integrated circuit.
Regarding claim 16, Kuo teaches an interconnect structure on a semiconductor die (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0010+], and as cited below), comprising:
a lower conductive layer (see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]; hereinafter lower conductive layer);
an upper conductive layer (see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]; hereinafter upper conductive layer) disposed above the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]); and
a vertical interconnect assembly (VIA) (({161, 162, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) disposed between the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) that provides a conduction path between the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]),
the VIA ({161, 162, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) comprising:
a primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) that physically contacts the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and has a first cross-sectional shape along a horizontal plane (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A); and
a sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) that physically contacts the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]), is disposed around the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]), is concentric with the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]), and has a second cross-sectional shape along the horizontal plane (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A);
wherein the first cross-sectional shape ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) has one of a square shape, a circular shape, an oval shape, or a closed polygonal shape;
wherein the second cross-sectional shape ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) has one of a square shape, a circular shape, an oval shape, or a closed polygonal shape; and
wherein the te primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) includes an outer perimeter (Ppo),
the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) includes both an inner perimeter (RIp) and an outer perimeter (Rop); and
the outer perimeter (Ppo) of the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) does not touch or intersect the inner perimeter (RIp) of the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]).
As per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In regards to “a sacrificial stress barrier ring”, Kuo teaches the same structure of claim 16 as detailed above. Thus, Kuo teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 17, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 16.
Kuo further teaches wherein both the first cross-sectional shape ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) and the second cross-sectional shape ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) have a square shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; cross- sectional portion of 162/165; cross- sectional portion of 161/164), both have a circular shape, both have an oval shape, or both have a closed polygonal shape.
Regarding claim 18, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 16.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises one layer of a back-end-of-line (BEOL) interconnect structure in a die; and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises a higher layer in the BEOL interconnect structure in the die.
Regarding claim 19, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 16.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises an upper layer in a back-end-of-line (BEOL) interconnect structure in a die; and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises a redistribution layer (RDL) that connects the lower conductive layer to another die or chip packaging pins in the integrated circuit.
Regarding claim 21, Kuo teaches an interconnect structure on a semiconductor die (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0010+], and as cited below), comprising:
a lower conductive layer (see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]; hereinafter lower conductive layer);
an upper conductive layer (see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]; hereinafter upper conductive layer) disposed above the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]); and
a vertical interconnect assembly (VIA) ({161, 162, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) disposed between the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) that provides a conduction path between the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]),
the VIA ({161, 162, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) comprising:
a primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) that physically contacts the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]);
a sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) that physically contacts the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]), disposed around the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]), is concentric with the primary interconnect structure ({162}; see Figs. 9, 10A; see [0034-0037])
As per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In regards to “a sacrificial stress barrier ring”, Kuo teaches the same structure of claim 1 as detailed above. Thus, Kuo teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 22, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 21.
Kuo further teaches wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A),
a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape (see Fig. 9),
the first geometric shape ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) has one of a square shape, a circular shape, an oval shape, or a closed polygonal shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A), and
the second geometric shape ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) has a one or a square shape, a circular shape, an oval shape, or a closed polygonal shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A).
Regarding claim 23, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 21.
Kuo further teaches wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; cross- sectional portion of 162/165), a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; cross- sectional portion of 161/164), and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a square shape (see Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; cross- sectional portion of 162/165; cross- sectional portion of 161/164), both have a circular shape, both have an oval shape, or both have a closed polygonal shape.
Regarding claim 25, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 21.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) includes an outer perimeter (Ppo);
the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) includes both an inner perimeter (RIp) and an outer perimeter (Rop); and
the outer perimeter (Ppo) of the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]) does not touch or intersect the inner perimeter (RIp) of the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9 in view Fig. 10A; see [0034-0037]).
Regarding claim 27, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 21.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the lower conductive layer (lower conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises one layer of a back-end-of-line (BEOL) interconnect structure in a die; and the upper conductive layer (upper conductive layer; see Annotated Fig. 9, above; see [0034-0037]) comprises a higher layer in the BEOL interconnect structure in the die.
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 5, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 20120261826 A1; hereinafter Kuo), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 5, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) has a width Rw has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) and the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]); and (see below for “a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1”).
As noted above, Kuo does not expressly disclose “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1”. Thus, the claimed “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is significant,. Thus, the claimed limitation of “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is not patentable over Kuo.
Furthermore, it has been held that “a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” (emphasis added) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1 is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1 is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1 as claimed in device because having a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1 can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance 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).
Regarding claim 24, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 21.
Kuo further teaches wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape (see Fig. 9 in view of Fig. 10A), a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape (see Fig. 9 in view of Fig. 10A)have (see below for “a polygonal shape”).
As noted above, Kuo does not expressly disclose “wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, claim 23 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a square shape, both have a circular shape, both have an oval shape”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape”. Thus, the claimed “wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein a cross-sectional portion of the primary interconnect structure along a horizontal plane has a first geometric shape, a cross- sectional portion of the sacrificial stress barrier ring along the horizontal plane has a second geometric shape, and both the first geometric shape and the second geometric shape have a polygonal shape” is not patentable over Kuo.
Regarding claim 26, Kuo teaches all of the features of claim 21.
Kuo further teaches wherein: the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) has a width Rw has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure ({162}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]) and the sacrificial stress barrier ring ({161, 163}; Fig. 9; see [0034-0037]); and (see below for “a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1”).
As noted above, Kuo does not expressly disclose “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1”. Thus, the claimed “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is significant,. Thus, the claimed limitation of “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “the primary interconnect structure has a width Pw; the sacrificial stress barrier ring has a width Rw ; the VIA has a separation space Rs between the primary interconnect structure and the sacrificial stress barrier ring; and a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” is not patentable over Kuo.
Furthermore, it has been held that “a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1” (emphasis added) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1 is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1 is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1 as claimed in device because having a ratio of Pw : Rw : Rs = 1: 0.25 to approximately 1: 0.25 to approximately 1 can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance 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).
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 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 Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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 J. Maldonado, can be reached on 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 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights