DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed to the newly amended claims filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The currently amended claim 1 is mapped to Applicant’s elected invention figure 1A, to ensure a clear understanding of how the claims are understood and interpreted.
Applicant’s Claim Mapped to Fig. 1
Claim 1: (Currently Amended) An electronic package, comprising:
a semiconductor die 108;
a conductive landing pad 110 on the semiconductor die 108;
an insulating film over 114/116 the semiconductor die 108, the insulating film 114/116 along a side and over a top of the conductive landing pad 110 but not along a bottom of the conductive landing pad, and the insulating film 114/116 having an opening over at least a portion of the conductive landing pad 108;
a conductive via 106 on a first portion of the conductive landing pad 108, the conductive via 106 in the opening of the insulating film 114/116, the conductive via 106 comprising copper, and the conductive via 106 having an uppermost surface 104; and
a dielectric layer 102 on the insulating film 114/116, the dielectric layer 102 on a second
portion of the conductive landing pad 110, the dielectric layer in the opening of the insulating film 114/116, the dielectric layer 102 laterally adjacent to and in direct contact with the copper of the conductive via 106, and the dielectric layer 102 having an uppermost surface 104 and a bottommost surface (portion which contacts landing pad 110.), the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer 102 above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad 110.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
1169
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The argument that the bottommost surface of dielectric layer 102 is positioned above the uppermost surface of landing pad 110 is not persuasive. While the originally filed figures may illustrate this spatial relationship in the immediate vicinity of the landing pad, the written disclosure does not explicitly state that this condition must be maintained throughout the entire device. The amendment appears to rely on a figure not understood to be drawn to an exact scale for support of this global limitation.
The previously cited prior art remains applicable. It demonstrates a dielectric layer within the opening of an insulating layer that contacts the uppermost surface of a landing pad. Because the prior art teaches this configuration at the point of interface, it effectively meets the scope of the recited limitations within the constraints of the limited disclosure. Regardless, such a modification is understood as an insignificant change in relative thicknesses and is not understood to provide any unexpected result or difference in operation. As evidence, Lei et al. (previously cited on the PTO-892) demonstrates that the alternate configuration over a landing pad is a equally viable option for a PHOSITA when forming conductive vias on a landing pad:
Saigal Fig. 3: Depicts a structure analogous to the cited prior art. Dielectric layer 308 contacts via 310 and is within an opening of insulating layer 306, contacting landing pad 106. As the dielectric layer 308 extends outwardly from the pad 304, its bottommost surface which contacts the landing pad and upper surface of the insulation layer may be described as being above the uppermost surface of the landing pad. As shown below, the bottommost surface remains above the uppermost surface of the landing pad as it extends outwardly.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The implied argument, that the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer is always above the uppermost surface of the landing pad, is an obvious modification known in the art. A PHOSITA at the time of the invention would recognize this as a simple relative change of shape or the result of routine optimization of layer thicknesses to achieve appropriate dielectric characteristics for the specific layers.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20110193232 A1) in view of Saigal et al. (US 6426282 B1).
PNG
media_image3.png
716
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1 Lin et al. discloses a electronic package, comprising: a semiconductor die 12/10;
a conductive landing pad 113 (Chen et al. figs. 3&6 & 13) on the semiconductor die (Chen et al. Fig. 1 & 11);
PNG
media_image4.png
238
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
284
424
media_image5.png
Greyscale
an insulating film 117 over the semiconductor die (Fig. 1), the insulating film 117 along a side and over a top of the conductive landing pad 113 but not along a bottom of the conductive landing pad, (Chen et al. Fig. 4)) and,
PNG
media_image6.png
376
448
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the insulating film 117 having an opening 119 over at least a portion of the conductive landing pad 113;
a conductive via 129a on a first portion of the conductive landing pad 113, the conductive via 129a in the opening 119 of the insulating film 117, the conductive via 129a comprising copper [¶26 – “…. the conductive pillar 129 may include an electrically conductive material such as copper or copper alloy…..”, and the conductive via having an uppermost surface (Chen et al. Fig. 6- i.e. dotted line, or top surface of 129b);
a dielectric layer 123 on the insulating film 117, the dielectric layer on a second portion of the conductive landing pad, the dielectric layer in the opening of the insulating film, the dielectric layer laterally adjacent to and in direct physical contact with the conductive via, and the dielectric layer having an uppermost surface (Chen et al. Fig. 6) and a bottom most surface,
PNG
media_image7.png
716
708
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad .
PNG
media_image8.png
438
624
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Further regarding, “the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad”, while subjectively supported by the Applicant’s figure, the scope of this limitation is not fully understood. Alternative to the interpretation as applied above, it would be considered an obvious modification to a PHOSITA to allow for the thickness of the insulation layer to be thicker than that of the landing pad such that when the dielectric layer is formed thereover and within the opening, “the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad,” as such configuration was known and used by a PHOSIA.
Saigal Fig. 3 depicts a structure analogous to the cited prior art. Dielectric layer 308 contacts via 310 and is within an opening of insulating layer 306, contacting landing pad 106. As the dielectric layer 308 extends outwardly from the pad 304, its bottommost surface which contacts the landing pad and upper surface of the insulation layer may be described as being above the uppermost surface of the landing pad. As shown below, the bottommost surface remains above the uppermost surface of the landing pad as it extends outwardly.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the insulating layer of Chen with a thicker non conformal insulation layer, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement (i.e. greater dielectric thickness over the substrate) to yield predictable results (increased isolation, protection, etc.) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 9219016 B2) in view of Chen et al. (US 20110193232 A1) in view of Saigal et al. (US 6426282 B1).
PNG
media_image9.png
466
810
media_image9.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1 Lin et al. discloses a electronic package, comprising: a semiconductor die 12/10;
a conductive landing pad 28 on the semiconductor die 12/10;
an insulating film 114 over the semiconductor die, the insulating film along a side and over a top of the conductive landing pad but not along a bottom of the conductive landing pad, (The insulating layer is shown to have dotted line. This dotted line in the figure is understood to be a interface between the identified insulating film and another insulating film which is below the pad. Note that the original disclosure of the application does not provide explicit support for no insulating material below and contact a bottom surface of the pad. The only support for the limitation is found in the figure showing a insulating film on the top surface and side surface. The support and understanding of the claim simply means that this film is on the claimed surfaces and not on the bottom. Lin et al. which forms the device structure in a conventional build up process, provides a structurally analogous insulating film over a portion of the top surface and covering the side. This insulating film does not continue to be on the bottom surface.) and,
the insulating film (not labeled) having an opening over at least a portion of the conductive landing pad;
a conductive via 34 on a first portion of the conductive landing pad 28, the conductive via 34 in the opening of the insulating film, the conductive via comprising copper, and the conductive via having an uppermost surface (Fig. 1);
a dielectric layer 30 on the insulating film (Fig. 1), the dielectric layer on a second portion of the conductive landing pad, the dielectric layer in the opening of the insulating film, the dielectric layer laterally adjacent to and in contact with the conductive via, and the dielectric layer having an uppermost surface and a bottom most surface, the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad (Fig. 1 – The dielectric extends into the opening contacting the uppermost surface, thereby meeting the scope in the immediate vicinity of the landing pad).
Regarding the conductive via comprising copper and in direct physical contact with the insulating film, this feature would have been an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention.
The UBM layer [32] in Lin is a well-known, optional component that primarily serves secondary functions such as promoting adhesion or preventing diffusion. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to omit this optional layer if its specific function was not desired for a particular application. By omitting the UBM layer [32], the copper-containing pillar [34] would naturally be in direct physical contact with the dielectric layer [30], thereby meeting the applicant’s claimed feature of a "first dielectric layer laterally adjacent to and in direct contact with the copper of the conductive via." Therefore, the claimed invention is merely an obvious modification of the prior art.
The Examiner directs the applicant to Chen et al., particularly paragraphs 26 and figures 1-6, for a teaching of the optional nature of UBM layers and their known function. Lin et al. teaches the analogous structure, and the claimed invention simply involves omitting the UBM layer as taught by Chen et al. The POSITA was aware that copper metallization was capable of being formed in direct physical contact with a dielectric, thus not requiring further intervening layers for electrical contact.
This analysis aligns with the principle discussed in MPEP § 2144.04(II)(A), which states that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Lin et al. with a copper pillar in direct physical contact with the dielectric layer as taught by Chen et al., since simple substitution of one known element for another (omitting the UBM layer) to obtain predictable results (direct electrical contact without the secondary benefits of adhesion/diffusion barriers) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Further regarding, “the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad”, while subjectively supported by the Applicant’s figure, the scope of this limitation is not fully understood. Alternative to the interpretation as applied above, it would be considered an obvious modification to a PHOSITA to allow for the thickness of the insulation layer to be thicker than that of the landing pad such that when the dielectric layer is formed thereover and within the opening, “the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad,” as such configuration was known and used by a PHOSIA.
Saigal Fig. 3 depicts a structure analogous to the cited prior art. Dielectric layer 308 contacts via 310 and is within an opening of insulating layer 306, contacting landing pad 106. As the dielectric layer 308 extends outwardly from the pad 304, its bottommost surface which contacts the landing pad and upper surface of the insulation layer may be described as being above the uppermost surface of the landing pad. As shown below, the bottommost surface remains above the uppermost surface of the landing pad as it extends outwardly.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the insulating layer of Lin and Chen with a thicker non conformal insulation layer, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement (i.e. greater dielectric thickness over the substrate) to yield predictable results (increased isolation, protection, etc.) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Claim 2-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 9219016 B2) in view of Chen et al. (US 20110193232 A1) in view of Saigal et al. (US 6426282 B1) in view of Hsu et al. (US 20110278716 A1) and/or Belanger et al. (US 20100193949 A1).
CLAIM 2. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. disclose a electronic package of claim 1, wherein uppermost surface of the dielectric layer is co-planar with the uppermost surface of the conductive via (Fig. 1). Note: The device of Lin comprises a conductive line and via of Lin. A via region of the conductive material effectively ends at the claimed location, as such this location is effectively coplanar. Further note, to make integral or separable is considered a obvious variant in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). This interpretation is based upon the only provided figure (5G0 by the applicant’s that depicts all recited limitation. It is noted that the conductive line is depicted in the same integral manner as shown by Lin.
As suggested in Fig. 6 Chen, the top surface of 129A is coplanar with the top surface of dielectric 123, implying the claimed structural relation ship.
None the less, as shown in Hsu, the conductive line portion of Lin is known to be capable of being removed through planarization should one desire the via to be a conductive bump or pillar structure. Belanger et al. fig. 1B additionally demonstrates planarized pillar via structure over a pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the via shape of Lin with the planarized surface shape as demonstrated in Hso and Belanger, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 3. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger disclose a electronic package of claim 1, wherein the conductive via and the conductive landing pad form a bumpless interface (Lin Fig. 1 & Chen Fig. 6).
CLAIM 4. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger disclose a electronic package of claim 1, wherein the conductive via has tapered sidewalls (Lin et al. Fig. 1).
CLAIM 5. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger disclose a electronic package of claim 1, wherein the insulating film is a passivating film (Lin Fig. 1 & Chen Fig. 6 - This limitation does not provide any further distinction. Passivating film as best understood from the written description is a function of a insulating/dialectic film.).
Claim 6-12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger et al. in view of Chou et al. (US 20070205520 A1).
CLAIM 6. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger disclose a electronic package of claim 1, however is silent upon wherein the insulating film is photo-sensitive . At the time of the invention it was known in the art to select photo-sensitive dielectric/insulating materials to form the analogous layers. Photosensitive
layers may be used to pattern and remain as dielectric/insulating layers thereby reducing steps and cost by simplifying production. For support see Chow et al., which effectively form a substantially similar device structure. The analogous dielectric layer 39 of Chou et al. is disclosed to be capable of being formed of a photo sensitive material for ease of patterning, see paragraph 75 of Chou et al.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a photosensitive dielectric, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 7. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger in view of Chou et al. discloses a electronic package, comprising: a semiconductor die; a conductive landing pad on the semiconductor die, the conductive landing pad having a top surface having an inner region within a perimeter region; an insulating film over the semiconductor die, the insulating film along a side and over a top of the conductive landing pad but not along a bottom of the conductive landing pad and, the insulating film on the perimeter region of the top surface of the conductive landing pad but not on the inner region of the top surface of the conductive landing pad; a conductive via on a first portion of the inner region of the top surface of the conductive landing pad, the conductive via comprising copper, the conductive via having an uppermost surface; a dielectric layer on the insulating film, the dielectric layer on a second portion of the inner region of the top surface of the conductive landing pad, the first portion of the inner region of the top surface of the conductive pad within the second portion of the inner region of the top surface of the conductive pad, the dielectric layer laterally adjacent to and in contact with the conductive via, and the dielectric layer having an uppermost surface (Lin Fig. 1 & Chen Fig. 6– See regarding claim 1) and a bottom most surface, the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad (Fig. 1 – The dielectric extends into the opening contacting the uppermost surface, thereby meeting the scope in the immediate vicinity of the landing pad).
Regarding the conductive via comprising copper and in direct physical contact with the insulating film, this feature would have been an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention.
The UBM layer [32] in Lin is a well-known, optional component that primarily serves secondary functions such as promoting adhesion or preventing diffusion. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to omit this optional layer if its specific function was not desired for a particular application. By omitting the UBM layer [32], the copper-containing pillar [34] would naturally be in direct physical contact with the dielectric layer [30], thereby meeting the applicant’s claimed feature of a "first dielectric layer laterally adjacent to and in direct contact with the copper of the conductive via." Therefore, the claimed invention is merely an obvious modification of the prior art.
The Examiner directs the applicant to Chen et al., particularly paragraphs 26 and figures 1-6, for a teaching of the optional nature of UBM layers and their known function. Lin et al. teaches the analogous structure, and the claimed invention simply involves omitting the UBM layer as taught by Chen et al. The POSITA was aware that copper metallization was capable of being formed in direct physical contact with a dielectric, thus not requiring further intervening layers for electrical contact.
This analysis aligns with the principle discussed in MPEP § 2144.04(II)(A), which states that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Lin et al. with a copper pillar in direct physical contact with the dielectric layer as taught by Chen et al., since simple substitution of one known element for another (omitting the UBM layer) to obtain predictable results (direct electrical contact without the secondary benefits of adhesion/diffusion barriers) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Further regarding, “the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad”, while subjectively supported by the Applicant’s figure, the scope of this limitation is not fully understood. Alternative to the interpretation as applied above, it would be considered an obvious modification to a PHOSITA to allow for the thickness of the insulation layer to be thicker than that of the landing pad such that when the dielectric layer is formed thereover and within the opening, “the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad,” as such configuration was known and used by a PHOSIA.
Saigal Fig. 3 depicts a structure analogous to the cited prior art. Dielectric layer 308 contacts via 310 and is within an opening of insulating layer 306, contacting landing pad 106. As the dielectric layer 308 extends outwardly from the pad 304, its bottommost surface which contacts the landing pad and upper surface of the insulation layer may be described as being above the uppermost surface of the landing pad. As shown below, the bottommost surface remains above the uppermost surface of the landing pad as it extends outwardly.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the insulating layer of Lin and Chen with a thicker non conformal insulation layer, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement (i.e. greater dielectric thickness over the substrate) to yield predictable results (increased isolation, protection, etc.) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 8. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger in view of Chou et al. discloses a electronic package of claim 7, wherein uppermost surface of the dielectric layer is co-planar with the uppermost surface of the conductive via (Lin et al. fig. 1 – See regarding claim 2
CLAIM 9. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger in view of Chou et al. discloses a electronic package of claim 7, wherein the conductive via and the conductive landing pad forma bumpless interface (Lin Fig. 1 & Chen Fig. 6).
CLAIM 10. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger in view of Chou et al. discloses a electronic package of claim 7, wherein the conductive via has tapered sidewalls (Lin fig. 1).
CLAIM 11. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger in view of Chou et al. discloses a electronic package of claim 7, wherein the insulating film is a passivating film (Lin Fig. 1 & Chen Fig. 6– This limitation is not understood to provide any further distinction from the insulating layer.).
CLAIM 12. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger in view of Chou et al. discloses a electronic package of claim 7, however is silent upon wherein the insulating film is photo-sensitive . At the time of the invention it was known in the art to select photo-sensitive dielectric/insulating materials to form the analogous layers. Photosensitive
layers may be used to pattern and remain as dielectric/insulating layers thereby reducing steps and cost by simplifying production. For support see Chow et al., which effectively form a substantially similar device structure. The analogous dielectric layer 39 of Chou et al. is disclosed to be capable of being formed of a photo sensitive material for ease of patterning, see paragraph 75 of Chou et al.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a photosensitive dielectric, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 13-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger in view of Chou et al. in supporting view of Cheah et al. (US 20110140268 A1)
CLAIM 13-20. Lin et al. in view of Chen et al. in view of Saigal et al. in view of Hsu in view of Belanger in view of Chou et al. discloses a computer system, comprising: a system bus (Chou ¶101 – semiconductor packages such as shown in Lin are known to have a bus.); and an electronic package coupled to the system bus, the electronic package comprising: a semiconductor die (Lin fig. 1); a conductive landing pad on the semiconductor die (Lin fig. 1); an insulating film over the semiconductor die the insulating film along a side and over a top of the conductive landing pad but not along a bottom of the conductive landing pad, (The insulating layer is shown to have dotted line. This dotted line in the figure is understood to be a interface between the identified insulating film and another insulating film which is below the pad. Note that the original disclosure of the application does not provide explicit support for no insulating material below and contact a bottom surface of the pad. The only support for the limitation is found in the figure showing a insulating film on the top surface and side surface. The support and understanding of the claim simply means that this film is on the claimed surfaces and not on the bottom. Lin et al. which forms the device structure in a conventional build up process, provides a structurally analogous insulating film over a portion of the top surface and covering the side. This insulating film does not continue to be on the bottom surface.) (Lin fig. 1), the insulating film having an opening over at least a portion of the conductive landing pad(Lin fig. 1); a conductive via on a first portion of the conductive landing pad, the conductive via in the opening of the insulating film, the conductive via comprising copper, and the conductive via having an uppermost surface (Lin fig. 1); a dielectric layer on the insulating film, the dielectric layer on a second portion of the conductive landing pad, the dielectric layer in the opening of the insulating film, the dielectric layer laterally adjacent to and in contact with the conductive via 34 [lower portion located within the dielectric/insulating layers opening], and the dielectric layer having an uppermost surface (Lin fig. 1) and a bottom most surface, the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad (Fig. 1 – The dielectric extends into the opening contacting the uppermost surface, thereby meeting the scope in the immediate vicinity of the landing pad).
It is further noted the claimed feature of a “bus” and the further features of a processor, display, memory, camera, and/or a digital sound recorder are all generically known components that are part of a chip/die package that would have landing pads and conductive pillars. These are all notoriously well known in the art and do not add any non-obvious patentable distinction. All electronic components will be expected to be coupled to the system bus in some manner, as a buss is what distributes power, and in a electronic device, the device components require power to operate.
Per Cheah et al. discloses the conventional knowledge of a chip/die package combination of a system bus in combination with a “processor”, “memory”, “digital sound recorder”, “camera”, and/or “display” that will be coupled to the system bus (¶74).
Note regarding claim 20, “voice recognition device” provides not structural distinction, as at best it is understood as software, thus would simply be some form of processor, memory and sound recording element., as such would be structurally analogous to the “digital sound recorder”.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding the conductive via comprising copper and in direct physical contact with the insulating film, this feature would have been an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention.
The UBM layer [32] in Lin is a well-known, optional component that primarily serves secondary functions such as promoting adhesion or preventing diffusion. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to omit this optional layer if its specific function was not desired for a particular application. By omitting the UBM layer [32], the copper-containing pillar [34] would naturally be in direct physical contact with the dielectric layer [30], thereby meeting the applicant’s claimed feature of a "first dielectric layer laterally adjacent to and in direct contact with the copper of the conductive via." Therefore, the claimed invention is merely an obvious modification of the prior art.
The Examiner directs the applicant to Chen et al., particularly paragraphs 26 and figures 1-6, for a teaching of the optional nature of UBM layers and their known function. Lin et al. teaches the analogous structure, and the claimed invention simply involves omitting the UBM layer as taught by Chen et al. The POSITA was aware that copper metallization was capable of being formed in direct physical contact with a dielectric, thus not requiring further intervening layers for electrical contact.
This analysis aligns with the principle discussed in MPEP § 2144.04(II)(A), which states that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Lin et al. with a copper pillar in direct physical contact with the dielectric layer as taught by Chen et al., since simple substitution of one known element for another (omitting the UBM layer) to obtain predictable results (direct electrical contact without the secondary benefits of adhesion/diffusion barriers) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Further regarding, “the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad”, while subjectively supported by the Applicant’s figure, the scope of this limitation is not fully understood. Alternative to the interpretation as applied above, it would be considered an obvious modification to a PHOSITA to allow for the thickness of the insulation layer to be thicker than that of the landing pad such that when the dielectric layer is formed thereover and within the opening, “the bottommost surface of the dielectric layer above an uppermost surface of the conductive landing pad,” as such configuration was known and used by a PHOSIA.
Saigal Fig. 3 depicts a structure analogous to the cited prior art. Dielectric layer 308 contacts via 310 and is within an opening of insulating layer 306, contacting landing pad 106. As the dielectric layer 308 extends outwardly from the pad 304, its bottommost surface which contacts the landing pad and upper surface of the insulation layer may be described as being above the uppermost surface of the landing pad. As shown below, the bottommost surface remains above the uppermost surface of the landing pad as it extends outwardly.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the insulating layer of Lin and Chen with a thicker non conformal insulation layer, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement (i.e. greater dielectric thickness over the substrate) to yield predictable results (increased isolation, protection, etc.) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
3/10/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898