Attorney Docket Number: SAM-61212
Filing Date: 07/31/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 12/29/2022 (KR 10-2022-0188120)
Inventors: Cho et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 01/22/2026.
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 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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, reading on figure 1, in the reply filed on 01/22/2026, is acknowledged. The applicant indicated that claims 1-20 read on the elected species. The examiner agrees. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-20.
Initial Remarks
For all citations from non-U.S. references, please refer to the non-English original versions of the documents, which are attached to this Office action.
Drawings
Quotes from the specification are from the published application US 2024/0222284.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: MR (see par.0067/ll.6-7).
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.
Claims Rejections
Initially, and with respect to claims 8-9 and 18, note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe,
even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that the applicants have the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
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 1-10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a diameter of an upper surface of the first conductive pillar portion that is opposite to a lower surface thereof bonded to the corresponding bonding pad is…”. The language of the claim does not clearly define or identify which specific surface of the conductive pillar portion is bonded to the corresponding bonding pad. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is meant to be read that “an upper surface” of the first conductive pillar portion is bonded to the “corresponding bonding pad” or whether “a lower surface thereof” is bonded to the “corresponding bonding pad”. Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite as the claim language does not clearly or decisively define which surface of the first conductive pillar portion is bonded to the corresponding bonding pad.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…and the third conductive pillar has a decreasing diameter in the vertical direction”. No “third conductive pillar” has been sufficiently previously recited in the claim or in any parental claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein a diameter of an upper surface of the first conductive pillar portion that is opposite to a lower surface thereof connected to the corresponding bonding pad is…”. The language of the claim does not clearly define or identify which specific surface of the conductive pillar portion is connected to the corresponding bonding pad. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is meant to be read that “an upper surface” of the first conductive pillar portion is connected to the “corresponding bonding pad” or whether “a lower surface thereof” is connected to the “corresponding bonding pad”. Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite as the claim language does not clearly or decisively define which surface of the first conductive pillar portion is connected to the corresponding bonding pad.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein a diameter of an upper surface of the first conductive pillar portion that is opposite to a lower surface thereof connected to the bonding pad is…”. The language of the claim does not clearly define or identify which specific surface of the conductive pillar portion is connected to the bonding pad. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is meant to be read that “an upper surface” of the first conductive pillar portion is connected to the “bonding pad” or whether “a lower surface thereof” is connected to the “bonding pad”. Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite as the claim language does not clearly or decisively define which surface of the first conductive pillar portion is connected to the bonding pad.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “…sequentially stacked on a corresponding bonding of the plurality of bonding pads”. No “bonding” alone has been sufficiently previously recited in the claim or in any parental claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein a diameter of an upper surface of the first conductive pillar portion that is opposite to a lower surface thereof connected to the bonding pad is…”. Claim 20 previously recites only a plurality of bonding pads and does not clearly distinguish to which of the plurality of previously-recited bonding pads the limitation “connected to the bonding pad” is intended to refer (see also the comments stated above in paragraph 15). Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
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 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 2022/0375829).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang (see, e.g., fig. 3A and 8B and pars.0074/ll.1-8 and 0116) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor package 12 comprising:
a lower redistribution layer 120/101/135/130 having a first region and a second region surrounding the first region, wherein the lower redistribution layer includes a plurality of first redistribution wirings 120/135/130;
a semiconductor chip 200 disposed on the first region of the lower redistribution layer and electrically connected to the plurality of first redistribution wirings (see, e.g., pars.0003/ll.3-6, 0042/ll.15-18, and 0045/ll.17-19);
a sealing member 400 disposed on the lower redistribution layer and covering the semiconductor chip;
a plurality of vertical conductive structures 300 disposed on the second region of the lower redistribution layer and penetrating the sealing member, wherein the plurality of vertical conductive structures are/is electrically connected to the plurality of first redistribution wirings (see, e.g., par.0045/ll.17-19);
an upper redistribution layer 600 disposed on the sealing member, wherein the upper redistribution layer includes a plurality of second redistribution wirings (635 farthest from 300)/(655 farthest from 300)/650 that are electrically connected to the plurality of vertical conductive structures (see, e.g., par.0056/ll.1-4); and
a plurality of bonding pads 155 (claims 2 and 4-10) or (630/635 closest to 300) (claim 3);
wherein:
the plurality of vertical conductive structures 300 are connected to the plurality of bonding pads 155 (claims 2 and 4-10) or (630/635 closest to 300) (claim 3) and extend from the plurality of bonding pads in a vertical direction (e.g., vertical direction corresponding to D) that is perpendicular to an upper surface of the lower redistribution layer;
each of the plurality of vertical conductive structures includes a first conductive pillar portion 310, a second conductive pillar portion 320, and a third conductive pillar portion 330 that are sequentially stacked on a corresponding bonding pad of the bonding pads;
the first conductive pillar portion has a first length in the vertical direction and the third conductive pillar portion has a third length in the vertical direction greater than the first length (see, e.g., pars.0049/ll.1-2, 0052/ll.1-4, 0053/ll.1-4, 0074/ll.1-8, and 0076/ll.7-13); and
a diameter of an upper surface 310a of the first conductive pillar portion, that is opposite to a lower surface thereof, is greater than a diameter W30 of a lower surface of the third conductive pillar portion that is adjacent to the first conductive pillar portion, wherein the lower surface of the first conductive pillar portion is bonded to the corresponding bonding pad (see, e.g., par.0075/ll.10-11)
Hwang’s disclosure already suggests the length relationships as recited in the claim. Additionally, Hwang clearly teaches that the lengths of Hwang’s conductive pillar portions are variable and may be selected as appropriate for a given application (see, e.g., Hwang: pars.0049/ll.8-14, 0053/ll.6-11, and 0144). As disclosed by Hwang, such length selections directly influence the structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity of the conductive pillar portions. Here, Hwang’s express teaching that length dimensions may vary taken together with its disclosure that the lengths of conductive pillar portions directly impacts the production and quality of the conductive pillar portions would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lengths of such conductive pillar portions, including a first conductive pillar portion and a third conductive pillar portion, could be adjusted to the dimensions of the claimed range (a third length in the vertical direction greater than a first length in the vertical direction) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting length to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as Hwang’s express teachings of structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
With regards to other language recited in claim 1, see the comments stated above in paragraph 11.
Regarding claim 11, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 1C, 3A, and 8B and pars.0066, 0081, and 0116) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor package 12 comprising:
a lower redistribution layer 120/101/135/130 having a plurality of first redistribution wirings 120/135/130;
a semiconductor chip 200 disposed on the lower redistribution layer, wherein:
the semiconductor chip includes a plurality of chip pads 230 at a first surface of the semiconductor chip; and
the first surface of the semiconductor chip is adjacent to the lower redistribution layer 120/101/135/130;
a sealing member 400 disposed on the lower redistribution layer and covering the semiconductor chip;
a plurality of vertical conductive structures 300 penetrating the sealing member and electrically connected to the plurality of first redistribution wirings (see, e.g., par.0045/ll.17-19);
an upper redistribution layer 600 disposed on the sealing member and having a plurality of second redistribution wirings (635 farthest from 300)/(655 farthest from 300)/650 that are electrically connected to the plurality of vertical conductive structures (see, e.g., par.0056/ll.1-4); and
a plurality of bonding pads 155 connected to one end portions of the plurality of vertical conductive structures;
wherein:
each of the plurality of vertical conductive structures 300 includes a first conductive pillar portion 310, a second conductive pillar portion 320, and a third conductive pillar portion 330 that are sequentially stacked on a corresponding bonding pad 155 of the plurality of bonding pads 155;
the first conductive pillar portion has a first length, the second conductive pillar portion has a second length less than the first length, and the third conductive pillar portion has a third length greater than the first length (see, e.g., pars.0049/ll.1-2, 0052/ll.1-4, 0053/ll.1-2, 0067/ll.1-5, 0067/ll.12-18, 0068, and 0076/ll.7-13); and
the first conductive pillar portion has a first tapered shape and the third conductive pillar portion has a third tapered shape different from the first tapered shape (see, e.g., par.0081)
Hwang’s disclosure already suggests the length relationships as recited in the claim. Additionally, Hwang clearly teaches that the lengths of Hwang’s conductive pillar portions are variable and may be selected as appropriate for a given application (see, e.g., Hwang: pars.0049/ll.8-14, 0053/ll.6-11, and 0144). As disclosed by Hwang, such length selections directly influence the structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity of the conductive pillar portions. Here, Hwang’s express teaching that length dimensions may vary taken together with its disclosure that the lengths of conductive pillar portions directly impacts the production and quality of the conductive pillar portions would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lengths of such conductive pillar portions, including a first conductive pillar portion, a second conductive pillar portion, and a third conductive pillar portion, could be adjusted to the dimensions of the claimed range (a second length less than a first length and a third length greater than the first length) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting length to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as Hwang’s express teaches of structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
Furthermore, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having a third tapered shape different from a first tapered shape, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the taper/conductive pillar portion shape disclosed by Hwang as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular taper/conductive pillar portion shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous taper/conductive pillar portion shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 20, Hwang (see, e.g., fig. 3A and 8B and pars.0074/ll.1-8 and 0116) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor package 12 comprising:
a lower redistribution layer 120/101/135/130 having a first region and a second region surrounding the first region, wherein the lower redistribution layer includes a plurality of first redistribution wirings 120/135/130;
a semiconductor chip 200 disposed on the first region of the lower redistribution layer, wherein the semiconductor chip includes a plurality of chip pads 230 at a first surface of the semiconductor chip, and wherein the first surface of the semiconductor chip is adjacent to the lower redistribution layer;
a sealing member 400 disposed on the lower redistribution layer and covering the semiconductor chip;
a plurality of vertical conductive structures 300 penetrating the sealing member, wherein the plurality of vertical conductive structures are/is disposed on the second region of the lower redistribution layer and are/is electrically connected to the plurality of first redistribution wirings (see, e.g., par.0045/ll.17-19);
an upper redistribution layer 600 disposed on the sealing member and having a plurality of second redistribution wirings 630/655/650 electrically connected to the plurality of vertical conductive structures (see, e.g., par.0056/ll.1-4); and
a plurality of bonding pads 155 respectively bonded to one end portions of the plurality of vertical conductive structures;
wherein:
each of the plurality of vertical conductive structures 300 includes a first conductive pillar portion 310, a second conductive pillar portion 320, and a third conductive pillar portion 330 that are sequentially stacked on a corresponding bonding pad 155 of the plurality of bonding pads 155;
the first conductive pillar portion has a first aspect ratio and the third conductive pillar portion has a second aspect ratio greater than the first aspect ratio (see, e.g., pars.0049/ll.1-2, 0052/ll.1-4, 0053/ll.1-4, 0074/ll.1-8, and 0076/ll.7-13)
a diameter of an upper surface 310a of the first conductive pillar portion, that is opposite to a lower surface thereof, is greater than a diameter W30 of a lower surface of the third conductive pillar portion that is adjacent to the first conductive pillar portion, wherein the lower surface of the first conductive pillar portion is connected to the corresponding bonding pad (see, e.g., par.0075/ll.10-11)
Hwang’s disclosure already suggests the aspect ratio relationships as recited in the claim. Additionally, Hwang clearly teaches that the length and width physical dimensions (i.e., aspect ratio) of Hwang’s conductive pillar portions are variable and may be selected as appropriate for a given application (see, e.g., Hwang: pars.0049/ll.8-14, 0052, 0053/ll.6-11, and 0144). As disclosed by Hwang, such aspect ratio selections directly influence the structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity of the conductive pillar portions. Here, Hwang’s express teaching that aspect ratio of conductive pillar portions may vary taken together with its disclosure that the aspect ratio of conductive pillar portions directly impacts the production and quality of the conductive pillar portions would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the aspect ratio of such conductive pillar portions, including a first conductive pillar portion and a third conductive pillar portion, could be adjusted to the dimensions of the claimed range (a second aspect ratio greater than a first aspect ratio) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting length and width (i.e., aspect ratio) to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as Hwang’s express teachings of structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
With regards to other language recited in claim 20, see the comments stated above in paragraphs 14-16.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B) shows that:
the plurality of bonding pads 155 are provided on an upper surface of the lower redistribution layer 120/101/135/130; and
the first conductive pillar portion 310 has a first tapered shape, the second conductive pillar portion 320 has a second tapered shape or a cylindrical shape, and the third conductive pillar portion 330 has a third tapered shape
Nevertheless, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having first, second, and third conductive pillar portions with a respective first tapered shape, second tapered shape or cylindrical shape, and third tapered shape, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the conductive pillar portion shape disclosed by Hwang as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular conductive pillar portion shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous conductive pillar portion shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B) shows that the plurality of bonding pads (630/635 closest to 300) are/is provided on a lower surface of the upper redistribution layer 600.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B and pars.0049/ll.1-2, 0052/ll.1-4, 0053/ll.1-4, 0074/ll.1-8, and 0076/ll.7-13) shows that the third length of the third conductive pillar portion 330 is at least 1.5 times of the first length of the first conductive pillar portion 310.
Hwang’s disclosure suggests the length relationships as recited in the claim. Additionally, Hwang clearly teaches that the lengths of Hwang’s conductive pillar portions are variable and may be selected as appropriate for a given application (see, e.g., Hwang: pars.0049/ll.8-14, 0053/ll.6-11, and 0144). As disclosed by Hwang, such length selections directly influence the structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity of the conductive pillar portions. Here, Hwang’s express teaching that length dimensions may vary taken together with its disclosure that the lengths of conductive pillar portions directly impacts the production and quality of the conductive pillar portions would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lengths of such conductive pillar portions, including a first conductive pillar portion and a third conductive pillar portion, could be adjusted to the dimensions of the claimed range (a third length at least 1.5 times of a first length) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting length to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as Hwang’s express teachings of structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
Nevertheless, differences in length 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). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed length difference produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed length limitation, i.e., a third length at least 1.5 times of a first length, does not render the claimed subject matter non-obvious.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed length difference, i.e., a third length at least 1.5 times of a first length, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hwang.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed length difference 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 claims 7 and 16, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B and pars.0049/ll.1-2, 0052/ll.1-4, 0053/ll.1-4, 0074/ll.1-8, and 0076/ll.7-13) shows that the first conductive pillar portion 310 has a first aspect ratio and the third conductive pillar portion 330 has a second aspect ratio greater than the first aspect ratio.
Hwang’s disclosure suggests the aspect ratio relationships as recited in the claim. Additionally, Hwang clearly teaches that the length and width physical dimensions (i.e., aspect ratio) of Hwang’s conductive pillar portions are variable and may be selected as appropriate for a given application (see, e.g., Hwang: pars.0049/ll.8-14, 0052, 0053/ll.6-11, and 0144). As disclosed by Hwang, such aspect ratio selections directly influence the structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity of the conductive pillar portions. Here, Hwang’s express teaching that aspect ratio of conductive pillar portions may vary taken together with its disclosure that the aspect ratio of conductive pillar portions directly impacts the production and quality of the conductive pillar portions would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the aspect ratio of such conductive pillar portions, including a first conductive pillar portion and a third conductive pillar portion, could be adjusted to the dimensions of the claimed range (a second aspect ratio greater than a first aspect ratio) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting length and width (i.e., aspect ratio) to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as Hwang’s express teachings of structural stability, manufacturability, and connectivity, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 8, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B and par.0123/ll.8-10) shows a plurality of plating patterns 151 disposed on the plurality of bonding pads 155, respectively.
Nevertheless, it is noted that Hwang shows all structural aspects of the semiconductor device according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 20-22 and 41 above), and the “plating” method steps required such that a plurality of “plating” patterns are disposed on the plurality of bonding pads, respectively, are intermediate steps that do not affect the structure of the final device.
Regarding claim 9, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B and par.0123/ll.8-10) shows that the first conductive pillar portion 310 of each of the plurality of vertical conductive structures 300 is connected to a corresponding one 151 of the plurality of plating patterns 151.
Nevertheless, it is noted that Hwang shows all structural aspects of the semiconductor device according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 20-22 and 41-43 above), and the “plating” method steps required such that the first conductive pillar portion of each of the plurality of vertical conductive structures is connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of “plating” patterns are intermediate steps that do not affect the structure of the final device.
Regarding claim 10, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B) shows a second package 21 disposed on the upper redistribution layer 600, wherein the second package includes a package substrate 710 and at least one semiconductor chip 700/720 stacked on the package substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 1C, 3A, and 8B and par.0081) shows that the first conductive pillar portion 310 has an increasing diameter in a vertical direction (e.g., direction corresponding to D going from 100 to 600), and the third conductive pillar portion has a decreasing diameter in the vertical direction, and wherein the second conductive pillar portion 320 is disposed between the first conductive pillar portion and the third conductive pillar portion and has a second tapered shape or a cylindrical shape.
With regards to other language recited in claim 12, see the comments stated above in paragraph 12.
Regarding claim 17, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B and par.0075/ll.10-11) shows that a diameter of an upper surface 310a of the first conductive pillar portion. that is opposite to a lower surface thereof, is greater than a diameter W30 of a lower surface of the third conductive pillar portion that is adjacent to the first conductive pillar portion, wherein the lower surface of the first conductive pillar portion is connected to the corresponding bonding pad.
With regards to other language recited in claim 17, see the comments stated above in paragraph 13.
Regarding claim 18, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B and par.0123/ll.8-10) shows a plurality of plating patterns 151 respectively disposed on the plurality of bonding pads 155.
Nevertheless, it is noted that Hwang shows all structural aspects of the semiconductor device according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 23-26 and 50 above), and the “plating” method steps required such that a plurality of “plating” patterns are respectively disposed on the plurality of bonding pads are intermediate steps that do not affect the structure of the final device.
Regarding claim 19, Hwang (see, e.g., figs. 3A and 8B) shows that the semiconductor chip 200 is mounted on the lower redistribution layer 120/101/135/130 via a plurality of conductive bumps 250.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Lei (US 2022/0020590), Lee (US 2010/0327422), and Pu (CN 112992673 A).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 20-22 above). Hwang (see, e.g., fig. 3A) further shows that a sidewall of the first conductive pillar portion 310 has a first angle from a horizontal direction that is parallel to an upper surface of the lower redistribution layer 120/101/135/130, wherein the first angle is an acute angle, and wherein Hwang appears to show that the first angle is selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees. Hwang additionally teaches that various structural modifications may be made to Hwang’s device without departing from the scope of Hwang’s invention (see, e.g., par.0145). Hwang, however, fails to explicitly specify the range the first angle may be selected from, including if the first angle is selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees.
Lei, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the angle of tapered portions of vertical conductive structures taken with respect to a horizontal direction affects the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such vertical conductive structures, wherein Lei teaches that such an angle range may be acute and fall within a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees (see, e.g., Lei: par.0003/ll.1-5 and 0043). Lei teaches that such a range for a first angle promotes high-volume manufacturing of vertical conductive structures (see, e.g., Lei: par.0026/ll.8-13). Furthermore, Lee, also in the same field of endeavor, additionally teaches that the angle of tapered portions of vertical conductive structures affects void formation, and can be chosen according to a desired connectivity of the vertical conductive structure (see, e.g., Lee: fig. 3 and pars.0062/ll.14-17 and 0070-0071). Finally, Pu also teaches that a first angle of tapered portions as taken with respect to a horizontal direction may be selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees (see, e.g., Pu: par.0014).
Lei, Lee, and Pu are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a first angle selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees would be equivalent to an acute angle selected from another range, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Hwang. That is, the first angles taught by Hwang or Lei, Lee, or Pu would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable acute angle for a tapered portion of a vertical conductive structure capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a first angle selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees, as taught by Lei, Lee, or Pu, another acute first angle selected from another range, as taught by Hwang, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable acute angle for a tapered portion of a vertical conductive structure capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Lei is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Hwang’s device a first angle selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees, as taught by Lei, so as to promote and facilitate high-volume manufacturing of Hwang’s vertical conductive structures.
Moreover, Hwang’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Hwang’s device without departing from the scope of Hwang’s invention taken together with Lei’s and Lee’s disclosures that scalability, manufacturing volume, interconnect quality, void formation, and connectivity are directly affected by taper angle, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first angle of Hwang could be adjusted to the specifics of the claimed dimensions (a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting taper angle to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as scalability, manufacturing volume, interconnect quality, void formation, and connectivity, as taught by Lei and Lee, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in angle 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). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed angle produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed angle limitation, i.e., selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees, does not render the claimed subject matter non-obvious.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed angle, i.e., a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hwang or Hwang/Lei/Lee/Pu.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed angle 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 13, Hwang shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 23-26 above). Hwang (see, e.g., fig. 3A) further shows that a sidewall of the first conductive pillar portion 310 has a first angle from a horizontal direction, wherein the first angle is an acute angle, and wherein Hwang appears to show that the first angle is selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees. Hwang additionally teaches that various structural modifications may be made to Hwang’s device without departing from the scope of Hwang’s invention (see, e.g., par.0145). Hwang, however, fails to explicitly specify the range the first angle may be selected from, including if the first angle is selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees.
Lei, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the angle of tapered portions of vertical conductive structures taken with respect to a horizontal direction affects the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such vertical conductive structure, wherein Lei teaches that such an angle range may be acute and fall within a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees (see, e.g., Lei: par.0003/ll.1-5 and 0043). Lei teaches that such a range for a first angle promotes high-volume manufacturing of vertical conductive structures (see, e.g., Lei: par.0026/ll.8-13). Furthermore, Lee, also in the same field of endeavor, additionally teaches that the angle of tapered portions of vertical conductive structures affects void formation, and can be chosen according to a desired connectivity of the vertical conductive structure (see, e.g., Lee: fig. 3 and pars.0062/ll.14-17 and 0070-0071). Finally, Pu also teaches that a first angle of tapered portions as taken with respect to a horizontal direction may be selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees (see, e.g., Pu: par.0014).
Lei, Lee, and Pu are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a first angle selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees would be equivalent to an acute angle selected from another range, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Hwang. That is, the first angles taught by Hwang or Lei, Lee, or Pu would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable acute angle for a tapered portion of a vertical conductive structure capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a first angle selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees, as taught by Lei, Lee, or Pu, another acute first angle, as taught by Hwang, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable acute angle for a tapered portion of a vertical conductive structure capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Lei is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Hwang’s device a first angle selected from a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees, as taught by Lei, so as to promote and facilitate high-volume manufacturing of Hwang’s vertical conductive structures.
Moreover, Hwang’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Hwang’s device without departing from the scope of Hwang’s invention taken together with Lei’s and Lee’s disclosures that scalability, manufacturing volume, interconnect quality, void formation, and connectivity are directly affected by taper angle, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first angle of Hwang could be adjusted to the specifics of the claimed dimensions (a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting taper angle to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as scalability, manufacturing volume, interconnect quality, void formation, and connectivity, as taught by Lei and Lee, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in angle will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed angle produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed first angle, i.e., a range of 40 degrees to 80 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hwang or Hwang/Lei/Lee/Pu. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 54-64 with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Lei, Jeng (US 2009/0115024), and Kuo (US 2021/0375708).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 20-22 above). Hwang (see, e.g., fig. 3A) further shows that a sidewall of the third conductive pillar portion 330 has a third angle from a horizontal direction that is parallel to the upper surface of the lower redistribution layer 120/101/135/130, wherein Hwang appears to show that the third angle is selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees. Hwang additionally teaches that various structural modifications may be made to Hwang’s device without departing from the scope of Hwang’s invention (see, e.g., par.0145). Hwang, however, fails to explicitly specify the range the third angle may be selected from, including if the third angle is selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees.
Lei, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the angle of tapered portions of vertical conductive structures taken with respect to a horizontal direction affects the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such vertical conductive structure, wherein Lei teaches that such a third angle may range in type and fall within a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees (see, e.g., Lei: par.0003/ll.1-5 and 0044/ll.10-19). Lei teaches that such a range for a third angle promotes high-volume manufacturing of vertical conductive structures (see, e.g., Lei: par.0026/ll.8-13). Furthermore, Jeng, also in the same field of endeavor, additionally teaches that the third angle of tapered portions of third conductive pillar portions of vertical conductive structures, as taken with respect to a horizontal direction parallel to upper surfaces of layers in Jeng’s device, affects stress propagation, wherein angles selected within a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees are more adept at advantageously distributing stress (see, e.g., Jeng: par.0029). Finally, Kuo, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Hwang, also teaches that a third angle of tapered portions as taken with respect to a horizontal direction may be selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees (see, e.g., Kuo: figs. 4A-4B and par.0086).
Lei, Jeng, and Kuo are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a third angle selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees would be equivalent to a third angle selected from another range, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Hwang. That is, the third angles taught by Hwang or Lei, Jeng, or Kuo would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable angle for a tapered portion of a vertical conductive structure capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a third angle selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees, as taught by Lei, Jeng, or Kuo, another third angle selected from another range, as taught by Hwang, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable angle for a tapered portion of a vertical conductive structure capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Lei is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Hwang’s device a third angle selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees, as taught by Lei, so as to promote and facilitate high-volume manufacturing of Hwang’s vertical conductive structures. Additionally, Jeng is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Hwang’s device a third angle selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees, as taught by Jeng, so as to better and more advantageously distribute stress in Hwang’s device.
Moreover, Hwang’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Hwang’s device without departing from the scope of Hwang’s invention taken together with Lei’s and Jeng’s disclosures that scalability, manufacturing volume, interconnect quality, and stress distribution are directly affected by taper angle, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the third angle of Hwang could be adjusted to the specifics of the claimed dimensions (a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting taper angle to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as scalability, manufacturing volume, interconnect quality, and stress distribution, as taught by Lei and Jeng, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in angle will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed angle produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed third angle, i.e., a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hwang or Hwang/Lei/Jeng/Kuo. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 54-64 with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 14, Hwang shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 23-26 above). Hwang (see, e.g., fig. 3A) further shows that a sidewall of the third conductive pillar portion 330 has a third angle from a horizontal direction, wherein Hwang appears to show that the third angle is selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees. Hwang additionally teaches that various structural modifications may be made to Hwang’s device without departing from the scope of Hwang’s invention (see, e.g., par.0145). Hwang, however, fails to explicitly specify the range the third angle may be selected from, including if the third angle is selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees.
Lei, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the angle of tapered portions of vertical conductive structures taken with respect to a horizontal direction affects the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such vertical conductive structure, wherein Lei teaches that such a third angle may range in type and fall within a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees (see, e.g., Lei: par.0003/ll.1-5 and 0044/ll.10-19). Lei teaches that such a range for a third angle promotes high-volume manufacturing of vertical conductive structures (see, e.g., Lei: par.0026/ll.8-13). Furthermore, Jeng, also in the same field of endeavor, additionally teaches that the third angle of tapered portions of third conductive pillar portions of vertical conductive structures, as taken with respect to a horizontal direction parallel to upper surfaces of layers in Jeng’s device, affects stress propagation, wherein angles selected within a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees are more adept at advantageously distributing stress (see, e.g., Jeng: par.0029). Finally, Kuo, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Hwang, also teaches that a third angle of tapered portions as taken with respect to a horizontal direction may be selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees (see, e.g., Kuo: figs. 4A-4B and par.0086).
Lei, Jeng, and Kuo are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a third angle selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees would be equivalent to a third angle selected from another range, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Hwang. That is, the third angles taught by Hwang or Lei, Jeng, or Kuo would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable angle for a tapered portion of a vertical conductive structure capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a third angle selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees, as taught by Lei, Jeng, or Kuo, another third angle selected from another range, as taught by Hwang, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable angle for a tapered portion of a vertical conductive structure capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Lei is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Hwang’s device a third angle selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees, as taught by Lei, so as to promote and facilitate high-volume manufacturing of Hwang’s vertical conductive structures. Additionally, Jeng is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Hwang’s device a third angle selected from a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees, as taught by Jeng, so as to better and more advantageously distribute stress in Hwang’s device.
Moreover, Hwang’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Hwang’s device without departing from the scope of Hwang’s invention taken together with Lei’s and Jeng’s disclosures that scalability, manufacturing volume, interconnect quality, and stress distribution are directly affected by taper angle, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the third angle of Hwang could be adjusted to the specifics of the claimed dimensions (a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting taper angle to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as scalability, manufacturing volume, interconnect quality, and stress distribution, as taught by Lei and Jeng, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in angle will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed angle produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed third angle, i.e., a range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hwang or Hwang/Lei/Jeng/Kuo. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 54-64 with respect to claim 4 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone 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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights