CTNF 18/230,793 CTNF 99314 Attorney Docket Number: TSMP20223870US02 Filing Date: 08/07/2023 Claimed Priority Date: 04/04/2023 (claims benefit of PRO 63/494,127) Inventors: Chen et al. Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar DETAILED ACTION This Office action responds to the election filed on 03/05/2026. 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 of Invention I, reading on a semiconductor device, and Species 6, reading on figure 14B in view of figure 12B and the process of figures 11 and 16-18, in the reply filed on 03/05/2026, is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Lines 3 and 7-8 of the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” document filed by Application on 03/05/2026 are understood by Examiner as Applicant indicating that claims 17-36 read on the elected invention and species. The Examiner agrees. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 17-36. Drawings Quotes from the specification are from the published application US 2024/0339424. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character " F13B " has been used to designate a region of a package component constructed by figure 9A and a region of a package component constructed by figure 9B (see figs. 12A-12B and pars.0032/ll.1-5 and 12-14). The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character " F13A " has been used to designate a region of a package component constructed by figure 9A and a region of a package component constructed by figure 9B (see figs. 12A-12B and pars.0032/ll.1-5 and 12-14). 06-22 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. Claim 31 is 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 31 recites the limitation “wherein the solder region extends closer to the first substrate than the insulating structure”. The language of the claim does not clearly distinguish whether the limitation “than the insulating structure” is intended to mean that the solder region extends closer to the first substrate than the insulating structure extends to the first substrate or that the solder region extends closer to the first substrate than the solder region extends to the insulating structure. Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite as it is unclear how the antecedent for the term “than” in the limitation “than the insulating structure” should be understood. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 25-26, 28-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chen I (US 2022/0301890) . Regarding claim 25, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B and pars.0019, 0041/ll.9-11, 0048/ll.1-3, 0051/ll.1-14, and 0059/ll.15-16) shows all aspects of the instant invention, a device comprising: a first substrate ( 306/308 ) ; a metal pillar 312 protruding from a surface (surface of 308 closest to 311 ) of the first substrate; a second substrate ( 10L not including 22L ) ; a conductive pad 22L along a surface (surface of 24L closest to 306 ) of the second substrate facing the first substrate; a solder region 114 on the conductive pad, the metal pillar extending into the solder region; an insulating structure 316 laterally surrounding the conductive pad and the solder region; a non-conductive film 311 between the first substrate and the insulating structure, the non-conductive film laterally surrounding the metal pillar; and an encapsulant 318 on the surface of the first substrate, the encapsulant extending along sidewalls of the second substrate, the insulating structure, and the non-conductive film Regarding claim 26, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B) shows that a surface (surface of 316 closest to 306 ) of the insulating structure 316 faces the first substrate ( 306/308 ) , wherein the solder region 114 contacts the surface of the insulating structure. Regarding claim 28, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B) shows that a height H1 of the metal pillar is greater than a thickness of the non-conductive film 311 . Regarding claim 29, Chen I (see, e.g. , fig. 11A) shows that the encapsulant 318 contacts the surface (surface of 308 closest to 311 ) of the first substrate ( 306/308 ) . Regarding claim 31, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B) shows that the solder region 114 extends toward the first substrate ( 306/308 ) and the insulating structure 316 extends toward the first substrate. With regards to other language recited in claim 31, see the comments stated above in paragraph 9. Regarding claim 32, Chen I (see, e.g. , fig. 11B and element H2 ) shows that a surface (surface of 316 closest to 306 ) of the insulating structure 316 faces the first substrate ( 306/308 ) , wherein a distance between the metal pillar 312 and the conductive pad 22L is less than a distance from the surface of the insulating structure to the conductive pad . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 33-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I . Regarding claim 33, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 10 and 11A-11B and pars.0019, 0041/ll.9-11, 0048/ll.1-3, 0051/ll.1-14, 0050/ll.16-20, 0051/ll.1-2, 0059/ll.15-16, 0062/ll.6-10, 0067) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a device comprising a package component, the package component comprising: a substrate ( 306/308 ) ; a first set of conductive pillars ( 312 in first 100 ) and a second set of conductive pillars ( 312 in second 100 ) protruding from the substrate; a non-conductive film 311 on the substrate and adjacent sidewalls of the first set of conductive pillars and sidewalls of the second set of conductive pillars; a first die (first 100 , including first 316 ) attached to the package component, the first die comprising: a first passivation layer ( 24L in first 100 ) ; a first set of under bump metallurgies (UBMs) ( 22L in first 100 ) extending through the first passivation layer; a first set of solder regions ( 114 in first 100 ) on corresponding ones of the first set of UBMs, the first set of solder regions electrically coupling the first set of UBMs to the first set of conductive pillars; and a first infill structure ( 316 with first 100 ) between the first passivation layer and the non-conductive film, wherein the first infill structure laterally surrounds the first set of UBMs and the first set of solder regions; and a second die (second 100 , including second 316 ) attached to the package component, the second die comprising: a second passivation layer ( 24L in second 100 ) ; a second set of under bump metallurgies (UBMs) ( 22L in second 100 ) extending through the second passivation layer; a second set of solder regions ( 114 in second 100 ) on corresponding ones of the second set of UBMs, the second set of solder regions electrically coupling the second set of UBMs to the second set of conductive pillars; and a second infill structure ( 316 with second 100 ) between the second passivation layer and the non-conductive film, wherein the second infill structure laterally surrounds the second set of UBMs and the second set of solder regions Although not explicitly illustrated in Chen I’s figures, Chen I explicitly states in Chen I’s written description that while only one of device 100 is illustrated on Chen I’s substrate ( 306/308 ) , any number of devices regions having a device 100 may be included on Chen I’s substrate (see, e.g. , pars.0050/ll.16-20 and 0051/ll.1-2). Accordingly, Chen I teaches that any number of devices 100 , such as two devices 100 , may be included on Chen I’s substrate, wherein each device is already taught by Chen I to respectively comprise the “first” and identically-recited “second” features claimed (see, e.g. , fig. 11 and pars.0041, 0046, 0047/ll.6-10, 0059, and 0062). Furthermore, it would have been readily apparent to one of skill in the semiconductor art to have a first die comprising the recited “first” features and a second die comprising the identically recited “second” features, based on a package designer’s choice for implementing a particular package layout function; and furthermore, the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) )). Therefore, the second die comprising the identically-recited “second” features claimed by the applicant are only considered to be a duplication of the first die comprising the “first” recited features disclosed by Chen I that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement in the design of a package using routine package techniques based, among other things, on network capacity requirements, design pitch density restrictions, desired device functionality, information transmission requirements, etc. (see In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) )), since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. , results which are different in kind from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the package comprises a die alongside its recited comprised components, as already suggested by Chen I. Therefore, because of the above and additionally because of Chen I’s explicit teaching that any number of devices 100 may be included on Chen I’s substrate ( 306/308 ) , Chen I is understood as teaching a first die comprising the recited “first” features and a second die comprising the identically recited “second” features. Regarding claim 34, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 10 and 11A-11B and pars.0019, 0041/ll.9-11, 0048/ll.1-3, 0051/ll.1-14, 0050/ll.16-20, 0051/ll.1-2, 0059/ll.15-16, 0062/ll.6-10, 0067) shows an encapsulant 318 on the substrate ( 306/308 ) and extending along sidewalls of the first die (first 100 , including first 316 ) and sidewalls of the second die (second 100 , including second 316 ) . See the comments stated above in paragraphs 21-25 regarding the first and second die, which are considered to be repeated here. Because Chen I explicitly teaches that Chen I’s device 100 may be repeated on Chen I’s substrate, and because Chen I teaches the use of an encapsulant as integral step in Chen I’s formation process and surrounding Chen I’s die (see, e.g. , pars. 0046, 0047/ll.9-10, and 0060), Chen I teaches the encapsulant structure as claimed. Regarding claim 35, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 10 and 11A-11B and pars.0019, 0041/ll.9-11, 0048/ll.1-3, 0051/ll.1-14, 0050/ll.16-20, 0051/ll.1-2, 0059/ll.15-16, 0062/ll.6-10, 0067) shows than an upper surface of the encapsulant 318 is level with upper surfaces of the first die (first 100 , including first 316 ) and the second die (second 100 , including second 316 ). See the comments stated above in paragraphs 21-25 regarding the first and second die, which are considered to be repeated here. Because Chen I explicitly teaches that Chen I’s device 100 may be repeated on Chen I’s substrate, and because Chen I teaches the use of an encapsulant as integral step in Chen I’s formation process and surrounding Chen I’s die (see, e.g. , pars. 0046, 0047/ll.9-10, and 0060), Chen I teaches the encapsulant structure as claimed . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I in view of Seo (US 2021/0320077) . Regarding claim 17, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B and pars.0019, 0020/ll.7-11, 0032/ll.6-7, 0033/ll.7-8, 0040/ll.9-13, 0041/ll.9-11, 0044/ll.12, 0048/ll.1-3, 0051/ll.1-14, and 0059/ll.15-16) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a device comprising: a first workpiece ( 302/304 not including 311 ) , the first workpiece comprising a metal pillar 312 extending vertically from an upper surface of the first workpiece; a second workpiece 10L , the second workpiece comprising a metal pad 22L along a lower surface of the second workpiece; a eutectic connecter 114 extending between and coupling the metal pillar and the metal pad; a first insulating layer 316 abutting the lower surface of the second workpiece, the first insulating layer laterally encapsulating the metal pad and at least a portion of the eutectic connector; and a second film 311 abutting an upper surface of the first workpiece and a lower surface of the first insulating layer, the second film laterally encapsulating the metal pillar Chen I shows most aspects of the instant invention. Furthermore, it is noted that while Chen I does not explicitly refer to connector 114 as eutectic, Chen I teaches that connector 114 may consist of solder, wherein Chen I further repetitively states that solder is an example of a eutectic (pars.0032/ll.6-7, 0033/ll.7-8, 0044/ll.12, and 0048/ll.1-3). Accordingly, Chen I teaches that connector 114 is a eutectic connector. Chen I (see, e.g. , pars.0020/ll.7-11 and 0059/ll.15-16) teaches that Chen I’s second film is a second film and that Chen I’s first insulating layer may comprise any suitable material, wherein Chen I further appears to show that the first insulating layer is a first film. Accordingly, Chen I implicitly teaches that Chen I’s first insulating layer is a first film. Furthermore, Seo, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen I, teaches insulating films to be but one of many valid and suitable layer structures for encapsulating and surrounding solder and metal interconnects in a semiconductor device, wherein Seo further teaches that such insulating films function equivalently to other insulating layers (see, e.g. , Seo: par.0040/ll.21-23). Seo is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that having a first film would be equivalent to having a first insulating layer, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Chen I. That is, the first insulating structures of both Chen I and Seo would yield the predictable result of supplying valid and suitable insulating structures for encapsulating conductive solder and metal interconnects in a semiconductor device. 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 film, as taught to be materially valid by Seo, or a first insulating layer, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of supplying valid and suitable insulating structures for encapsulating conductive solder and metal interconnects in a semiconductor device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 20, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B) shows that the metal pillar 312 penetrates into the first film 316 . Regarding claim 21, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B) shows that a height H1 of the metal pillar 312 is greater than a thickness of the second film 311 . Regarding claim 22, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B) further shows a passivation layer 24L along the lower surface of the second workpiece 10L , the metal pad 22L extending through the passivation layer. Regarding claim 23, Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B and pars.0032/ll.6-7, 0033/ll.7-8, 0044/ll.12, and 0048/ll.1-3) shows that the eutectic connector 114 contacts a sidewall of the metal pillar 312 . Regarding claim 24, Chen I (see, e.g. , fig. 11B and pars.0032/ll.6-7, 0033/ll.7-8, 0044/ll.12, and 0048/ll.1-3) shows that the eutectic connector 114 contacts a lower surface (surface of 316 closest to 311 ) of the first film 316 . See the comments stated above in paragraphs 29-33 regarding the first film, which are considered to be repeated here . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I/Seo in view of Chen II (US 2014/0008786) . Regarding claim 18, Chen I/Seo shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 29-33 above). Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B and pars.0032/ll.6-7, 0033/ll.7-8, 0044/ll.12, and 0048/ll.1-3) further shows that the eutectic connector 114 (see the comments stated above in paragraph 30 regarding the eutectic connector, which are considered to be repeated here) extends into the first film 316 (see the comments stated above in paragraphs 29-33 regarding the first film, which are considered to be repeated here) and surrounds an outer surface of the metal pillar 312 . Chen I further teaches that recessing of Chen I’s second film 311 allows the eutectic connector to cover a greater surface area of the metal pillar to potentially increase bonding strength, indicating that Chen I values increased bonding strength and acknowledges manipulation of Chen I’s second film as a mechanism to achieve this (see, e.g. , pars.0058/ll.9-12 and 0059/ll.6-9). Chen I, however, fails to specify that Chen I’s connector extends into the second film. Chen II, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen I, teaches a solder connector 90 extending into a second film 50 and surrounding an outer surface of a metal pillar 40 (see, e.g. , Chen II: figs. 4-5). Chen II teaches that such an extension structure increases connection strength between the solder connector and the metal pillar, mitigates short circuiting, and limits undesired solder flow (see, e.g. , Chen II: pars.0017/ll.16-21 and 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Chen I’s connector extend into the second film, as taught by Chen II, so as to increase connection strength between the eutectic connector and the metal pillar, already taught to be desired by Chen I, as well as to mitigate short circuiting and limit undesired solder flow . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I/Seo in view of Ratificar (US 2003/0121958) and Qian (US 2023/0154840) . Regarding claim 19, Chen I/Seo shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 29-33 above). Chen I (see, e.g. , fig. 11B and pars.0032/ll.6-7, 0033/ll.7-8, 0044/ll.12, and 0048/ll.1-3) further shows that the metal pillar 312 has an end embedded in the eutectic connector 114 . Chen I, however, fails to specify that Chen I’s end is a rounded end. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality, that is, results that differ in kind from the results of the prior art, of having a rounded end, as claimed in the instant application. Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the end shape disclosed by Chen I/Seo 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 end shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous end 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). Furthermore, the claimed rounded end shape is known in the art: Ratificar and Qian, in the same field of endeavor, both teach that the end shape of pillars embedded in eutectic or conductive connectors can be rounded, wherein Qian further teaches that the use of such a rounded end shape may reduce occupied area and save space in a device (see, e.g. , Ratificar: fig. 2 and Qian: fig. 9 and par.0069/ll.12-14). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the rounded end shape in the structure of Chen I/Seo, because rounded end shapes are known in the semiconductor art for their use as appropriate end shapes for conductive pillars embedded in conductive material, as suggested by Ratificar and Qian, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Moreover, Qian is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would find particular incentive to have the end shape of Chen I’s metal pillar be rounded, as taught by Qian, so as to reduce occupied area and save space in Chen I’s device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I in view of Chen II . Regarding claim 27, Chen I teaches most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 12 above). Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B) further shows that a portion of the solder region 114 extends laterally into the first insulating structure 316 and surrounds an outer surface of the metal pillar 312 . Chen I further teaches that recessing of Chen I’s non-conductive film 311 allows the solder region to cover a greater surface area of the metal pillar to potentially increase bonding strength, indicating that Chen I values increased bonding strength and acknowledges manipulation of Chen I’s non-conductive film as a mechanism to achieve this (see, e.g. , pars.0058/ll.9-12 and 0059/ll.6-9). Chen I, however, fails to specify that a portion of Chen I’s solder region extends laterally beyond a sidewall of the insulating structure into the non-conductive film. Chen II, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen I, teaches a device having a portion of a solder region 90 extending laterally beyond a sidewall of a first insulating structure into a non-conductive film 50 and surrounding an outer surface of a metal pillar 40 (see, e.g. , Chen II: figs. 4-5 and par.0023). Chen II teaches that such an extension and penetration structure increases connection strength between the solder region and the metal pillar, mitigates short circuiting, and limits undesired solder flow (see, e.g. , Chen II: pars.0017/ll.16-21 and 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a portion of Chen I’s solder region extend laterally beyond a sidewall of the insulating structure into the non-conductive film, as taught by Chen II, so as to increase connection strength between Chen I’s solder region and conductive pillar, already taught to be desired by Chen I, as well as to mitigate short circuiting and limit undesired solder flow. Regarding claim 36, Chen I teaches most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 21-25 above). Chen I (see, e.g. , figs. 11A-11B) further shows that a portion of a solder region 114 of the first set of solder regions ( 114 in first 100 ) (see the comments stated above in paragraphs 21-25 regarding the first set of solder regions and other “first” features, which are considered to be repeated here) extends laterally into the first infill structure ( 316 with first 100 ) and surrounds an outer surface of metal pillar 312 . Chen I further teaches that recessing of Chen I’s non-conductive film 311 allows the solder region to cover a greater surface area of the conductive pillar to potentially increase bonding strength, indicating that Chen I values increased bonding strength and acknowledges manipulation of Chen I’s non-conductive film as a mechanism to achieve this (see, e.g. , pars.0058/ll.9-12 and 0059/ll.6-9). Chen I, however, fails to specify that a portion of Chen I’s solder region extends laterally beyond the first infill structure into the non-conductive film. Chen II, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen I, teaches a portion of a solder region 90 of a first set of solder regions 90 extending laterally beyond a first infill structure into a non-conductive film 50 and surrounding an outer surface of a conductive pillar 40 (see, e.g. , Chen II: figs. 4-5 and par.0023). Chen II teaches that such an extension and penetration structure increases connection strength between the solder region and the conductive pillar, mitigates short circuiting, and limits undesired solder flow (see, e.g. , Chen II: pars.0017/ll.16-21 and 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a portion of Chen I’s solder region of the first set of solder regions extend laterally beyond the first infill structure into the non-conductive film, as taught by Chen II, so as to increase connection strength between Chen I’s solder region and conductive pillar, already taught to be desired by Chen I, as well as to mitigate short circuiting and limit undesired solder flow . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen I in view Pendse (US 2011/0084386) . Regarding claim 30, Chen I shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 12 above). Chen I additionally shows multiple adjacent metal pillars 312 and further teaches that the dimensions of Chen I’s metal pillars may be adjusted to improve facets of Chen I’s device, such as bonding strength and detachment prevention (see, e.g. , par.0056). Chen I (see, e.g. , fig. 11B) further appears to show that a width of a metal pillar 312 is less than a width of the conductive pad 22L . Chen I, however, fails to specify this. Pendse, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen I, teaches a device wherein a width of a metal pillar 256 or 260 is less than a width of a conductive pad 232 (see, e.g. , Pendse: fig. 11g and pars.0073/ll.12, 0077/ll.10-11, and 0089/ll.8-9). Pendse further teaches that reducing the widths of metal pillars allows for the pitch of the metal pillars to similarly be reduced, thereby increasing routing density and I/O count. Pense is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a width of a metal pillar being less than a width of a conductive pad would be equivalent to a width of a metal pillar being implicitly less than or not less than a width of a conductive pad, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Chen I. That is, the metal pillars and conductive pads of both Chen I and Pendse would yield the predictable result of supplying suitably-shaped conductive architectures capable of electrical communication with other conductive features in a semiconductor device. 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 width of a metal pillar be less than a width of a conductive pad, as taught by Pendse, or a width of a metal pillar be implictly less than or not less than a width of a conductive pad, as taught by Chen I, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of supplying suitably-shaped conductive architectures capable of electrical communication with other conductive features in a semiconductor device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, Pendse is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would find particular incentive to have a width of the metal pillar be less than a width of the conductive pad, as taught by Pendse, so as to employ a known functional conductive architecture structure in Chen I’s device that simultaneously reduces the pitches of metal pillars, thereby increasing of interconnect density and I/O routing. Moreover, Chen I’s express teaching that the dimensions of Chen I’s metal pillar may be adjusted to improve facets of Chen I’s device, taken together with Pendse’s disclosure that reducing the widths and subsequent pitches of metal pillars increases and improves routing density and I/O count, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that metal pillar widths may be adjusted as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, including such that a width of a metal pillar is less than a width of a conductive pad. Adjusting width to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, as well as Pendse’s express teachings of increasing routing density and I/O count, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed width relationship is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 2 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 3 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 4 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 5 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 6 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 7 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 8 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 9 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 10 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 11 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 12 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 13 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 14 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 15 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 16 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 17 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 18 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 19 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 20 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 21 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/230,793 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 22 Art Unit: 2814
Prosecution Insights