DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Inventions I/ Species II and claims 1, 3 and 4-9 in the reply filed on 7/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/31/2025. Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct because the device recited in claim 1 can be made by another and materially different process than the method recited in the independent method claim 10, as detailed in the office action mailed 6/26/2025. There would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because of the following:
the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or
Examiner is withdrawing the species restriction in view of a reference that teaches both the species as applied to the rejections below. Hence, claim 2 will be examined.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-9 will be examined below.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) from PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation that “wherein each of the sub-conductor units has a dot structure.” As shown in Fig. 4, the sub-conductor unit 2021 resembles a rectangular shape and not a dot-like structure.
Therefore, the features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2, 3 and 5 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 2 recites the limitation “a pad structure resistant to plasma damage of claim 1” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a pad structure of claim 1”
Claim 3 recites the limitation that “wherein each of the sub-conductor units has a dot structure.” As shown in Fig. 4, the sub-conductor unit 2021 resembles a rectangular shape and not a dot-like structure. Hence, the claim is indefinite and rejected. For examination purposes, the dot-like structure will be interpreted as a rectangular shape as disclosed in Fig. 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein a ratio of a surface area of each of the sub-conductor units to a surface area of the gate is lower than a ratio defined in a predetermined antenna design rule.” It is unclear how the ratio is defined in a predetermined antenna design rule and what is the value of the ratio. Since the ratio is not defined or quantified, the claim becomes ambiguous and indefinite and hence, rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng et al. (US 2013/0277860 A1).
Re Claim 1, Weng teaches a semiconductor device with a pad structure (Fig. 6E) comprising:
a main pad portion (130, marked “main pad portion” in annotated Fig. 6E below, para [0046]) including a plurality of main conductor units (M11 / M21 / M31 / M41, Figs. 6D-6E, paras [0043] – [0046]) formed in a plurality of corresponding metal layers (“first / second / third / fourth interconnect metal layers”, Figs. 6D-6E, paras [0043] – [0046]) and a plurality of main via units (via1 / via2/ via3, within “main pad portion”, Figs. 6D-6E, paras [0043] – [0046]) formed in a plurality of corresponding dielectric layers (104 / 106 /108, Figs. 6D-6E, paras [0043] – [0046]), wherein the metal layers include a top metal layer (“fourth interconnect metal layer”, para [0046]), and wherein the plurality of main via units are electrically connected to the plurality of corresponding main conductor units (see Figs. 6D-6E), so that the plurality of main conductor units are electrically connected with one another (see Figs. 6D-6E);
a sub-pad portion (marked “sub-pad portion” in annotated Fig. 6E below which is part of ring pad portion 120, para [0046]) including a plurality of sub-conductor units (M12 / M22 / M32 / M42, Figs. 6D-6E, paras [0043] – [0046]) formed in the plurality of corresponding metal layers (“first / second / third / fourth interconnect metal layers”) and a plurality of sub-via units (via1 / via2/ via3, within “sub-pad portion”, Figs. 6D-6E, paras [0043] – [0046]) formed in the plurality of corresponding dielectric layers (104 / 106 /108), wherein the plurality of sub-via units are electrically connected to the plurality of corresponding sub-conductor units (see Figs. 6D-6E), so that the plurality of sub-conductor units are electrically connected with one another (see Figs. 6D-6E) and so that the sub-pad portion (“sub-pad portion”) is electrically connected to a gate (103, Fig. 6E, para [0042]) of at least one metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) (101, Fig. 6E, para [0042]);
a pad bonding unit (“80a + via4-a”, marked in annotated Fig. 6E below, para [0047]), which is in direct contact with and is in connection with a top main conductor unit (M41, Figs. 6D-6E), wherein the top main conductor unit is the main conductor unit formed in the top metal layer (“fourth interconnect metal layer”); and
a bridge pad unit (“80b + via4-b”, marked in annotated Fig. 6E below, para [0047]), which is in direct contact with and is in connection with a top sub-conductor unit (M42, Figs. 6D-6E), wherein the top sub-conductor unit is the sub-conductor unit formed in the top metal layer (“fourth interconnect metal layer”);
wherein the bridge pad unit (“80b + via4-b”) is in direct contact with and in connection (see annotated Fig. 6E below) with the pad bonding unit (“80a + via4-a”);
wherein the main pad portion (“main pad portion”) and the sub-pad portion (“sub-pad portion”) are located below the pad bonding unit and the bridge pad unit, respectively (see annotated Fig. 6E below), and the main pad portion and the sub-pad portion are not in direct connection with each other (see annotated Fig. 6E below).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 4, Weng teaches the semiconductor device with a pad structure of claim 1, wherein a surface area of each of the main conductor units (M11 / M21 / M31 / M41) is greater (see Figs. 6D-6E) than a surface area of each of the sub-conductor units (M12 / M22 / M32 / M42).
Re Claim 5, Weng teaches the semiconductor device with a pad structure of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a surface area of each of the sub-conductor units (M12 / M22 / M32 / M42) to a surface area of the gate (103) is lower than a ratio defined in a predetermined antenna design rule (the antenna-to-gate area ratio on the various metal rings of ring pad portion 120 and metal bridges 80, 90 may be well below a pre-determined antenna-effect area ratio, para [0051]).
Re Claim 6, Weng teaches the semiconductor device with a pad structure of claim 1, wherein the pad bonding unit (“80a + via4-a”) and the bridge pad unit (“80b + via4-b”) are formed in a redistribution layer, RDL, (110+via4+112+80+85 forms the redistribution layer, Fig. 6E, paras [0047]) which is on the main pad portion (“main pad portion”) and the sub-pad portion (“sub-pad portion”), wherein the RDL (110+via4+112+80+85) is in direct contact with the top metal layer (“fourth interconnect metal layer”).
Re Claim 7, Weng teaches the semiconductor device with a pad structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of main conductor units (M11 / M21 / M31 / M41) and the plurality of sub- conductor units (M12 / M22 / M32 / M42) include a material of copper (Cu) or aluminum (Al) (metal layers can be formed of copper, para [0045]).
Re Claim 8, Weng teaches the semiconductor device with a pad structure of claim 1, wherein the pad bonding unit (“80a + via4-a”) and the bridge pad unit (“80b + via4-b”) include a material of aluminum (Al) (layers 80/85 can be made of Aluminum, para [0047]).
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng et al. (US 2013/0277860 A1).
Re Claim 2, Weng teaches the semiconductor device with a pad structure of claim 1, but does not show a corresponding top-view.
However, Weng discloses that there can be different arrangements and shapes of the main paid portion 130 and the ring pad portion 120, as shown in Fig. 9 (para [0054]). For example, in the top-left embodiment of Fig. 9, the ring pad portion 120 completely encircles the main pad portion 130, as recited in the claim limitation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the semiconductor device of Fig. 6E of Weng according to the top-left embodiment of Fig. 9, wherein each of the sub-conductor units (M12 / M22 / M32 / M42, of the ring portion 120) completely encircles a corresponding one of the main conductor units (M11 / M21 / M31 / M41 of the main pad portion 130) which is formed in a same metal layer.
Re Claim 3, Weng teaches the semiconductor device with a pad structure of claim 1, but does not show a corresponding top-view.
However, Weng discloses that there can be different arrangements and shapes of the main paid portion 130 and the ring pad portion 120, as shown in Fig. 9 (para [0054]). For example, in the bottom-right embodiment of Fig. 9, the ring pad portion 120 does not encircle the main pad portion 130, and is located outside of the main pad portion and hence outside of the main conductor units, and the ring pad portion 120 has a rectangular shape, as recited in the claim limitation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to modify the semiconductor device of Fig. 6E of Weng according to the bottom-right embodiment of Fig. 9, wherein each of the sub-conductor units (M12 / M22 / M32 / M42 of the ring portion 120) does not encircle a corresponding one of the main conductor units (M11 / M21 / M31 / M41 of the main pad portion 130) which is formed in a same metal layer, but each of the sub-conductor units is located outside of the corresponding main conductor unit (bottom-right embodiment of Fig. 9) which is formed in the same metal layer, wherein each of the sub-conductor units has a dot structure (the sub-conductor units will have the same rectangular shape as that of the ring pad portion 120 as shown in the bottom-right embodiment of Fig. 9 of Weng; Examiner notes that the dot-like structure is interpreted as a rectangular shape as disclosed in Fig. 4 of the original specification of the applicant).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng et al. (US 2013/0277860 A1), and further in view of Sutardja et al. (US 2012/0098127 A1).
Re Claim 9, Weng teaches the semiconductor device with a pad structure of claim 1, wherein the pad bonding unit (“80a + via4-a”) and the bridge pad unit (“80b + via4-b”) are formed by a metal deposition process (para [0047]) but does not explicitly state an electrodeposition process step.
The limitation “wherein the pad bonding unit and the bridge pad unit are formed by an electrodeposition process step” is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, the claimed “pad bonding unit and the bridge pad unit” need not be formed by the process of “electrodeposition”. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
Additionally, related semiconductor art, Sutardja teaches that the metal layers can be formed over dielectric layers using suitable processes that are well known, for example, a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process a sputtering process, an electrodeposition, or an evaporative deposition (para [0027]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to form the pad bonding unit and the bridge pad unit of Weng by a well-known metal deposition like an electrodeposition process as disclosed by Sutardja. The selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination as established in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898