DETAILED ACTION
As agreed after the interview on 07/15/2026, the Notice of Informal or Non-Responsive Continued of Prosecution Application (CPA) Amendment mailed 06/16/2026 is hereby withdrawn. Applicant's submission filed on 04/06/2026 will be entered.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 04/06/2026, in which claims 1, 7, 26 were amended, claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-19, 21-23, 25 were cancelled, claims 14, 20, 24 were withdrawn, claims 28-32 were added, has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. In Fig. 9, portions of the second RDL are separated and portions of the third RDL are separated. Fig. 10a does not show all portions of the second RDL are connected. Fig. 10a does not show portions of the third RDL as well as whether all portions of the third RDL are connected or isolated from each other. It is noted that Fig. 10a does not show overall shape of the second RDL and the third RDL. Thus, the shape of the second RDL and the third RDL in the following annotated drawing is arbitrary to show that in Fig. 10a first RDL 146 is exposed, is between and around two sections of second RDL.
PNG
media_image1.png
471
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, no one can make a conclusion from Fig. 10a that the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL and the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL. Therefore, the features of “wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL; wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL” of claim 1, 7, 28 and 29 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 1, 7, 28 and 29 recites the limitation “wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL; wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL”. However, the specification fails to provide a written description of above claimed subject matter the invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 28 and 29, claim 1 and claim 7 each recites the limitation “wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL; wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL”; claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL” and claim 29 recites the limitation “wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL. However, the specification does not provide any description of the above limitation. Accordingly, claims 1, 7, 28 and 29and all claims depending therefrom were not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Applicant is remined that MPEP 2163 (I)(B) requires “newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure” thus, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation’ ‘in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 (“If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
The purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. §112(a) is to determine if “the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP § 2163.02. "[e]ven if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343–46 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "Generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed [see Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)].” See also MPEP §2163.03.
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, 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pub. 20200075488) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20240196515) and Sato (US Pub. 20110079419).
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al. discloses in Fig. 9C, paragraph [0043] a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate [302];
a first redistribution layer (RDL) [first 308] formed over a first surface of the substrate [302];
a first insulating layer [310A] formed over the first RDL [308];
a second RDL [311A] formed over the first insulating layer [310A] and the first RDL [308] is disposed between the first surface of the substrate [302] and second RDL [311A] and a first conductive via formed through the first insulating layer [310A] electrically connecting the first RDL [308] and second RDL [311A];
a plurality of first openings formed in the second RDL [311A] and extending through the second RDL [311A] to the first insulating layer [310A] around at least a portion of the first conductive via, wherein a second one of the plurality of first openings is laterally separated from a first one of the plurality of first openings by a portion of the second RDL [311A];
a second insulating layer [310B] formed over the second RDL [311A] and extending into the plurality of first openings of the second RDL [311A] to provide stress relief;
a third RDL [311B] formed over the second insulating layer [310B] and a second conductive via formed through the second insulating layer [310B] electrically connecting the second RDL [311A] and third RDL [311B]; and
a plurality of second openings formed in the third RDL [311B] and extending through the third RDL [311B] to the second insulating layer [310B] around at least a portion of the second conductive via, wherein a second one of the plurality of second openings is laterally separated from a first one of the plurality of second openings by a portion of the third RDL [311B] and the first one of the plurality of second openings is offset to be outside a vertical projection of the first one of the plurality of first openings and further outside a vertical projection of the second one of the plurality of first openings, and the second one of the plurality of second openings is offset to be outside a vertical projection of the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Notes, the limitation of “to provide stress relief” directs to an intended use of the first opening. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wu et al. fails to disclose
wherein the first RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the first RDL;
wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL;
wherein the second RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of first openings;
wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL;
wherein the third RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of second openings;
wherein the first one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular;
wherein the first one of the plurality of second openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of second openings is semi- circular.
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 5D, Fig. 5G-5I, Fig. 6A-6B
wherein an RDL [10R] is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL [10R];
wherein an RDL [10R] extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of openings [45];
wherein the first one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular [Fig. 5G].
For providing support for an RDL that is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL, and semi-circular openings are formed in an RDL, Sato is cited.
Sato discloses in Fig. 1B, Fig. 3B-3C
wherein an RDL [104] is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL [104];
wherein an RDL [104] extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of openings [106a, b];
wherein one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular.
Thus, it would be obvious to apply the teachings of Lee et al. and Sato to any RDL (first RDL, second RDL and/or third RDL) disclosed by Wu et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. and Sato into the method of Wu et al. to include wherein the first RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the first RDL; wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL; wherein the second RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of first openings; wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL; wherein the third RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of second openings; wherein the first one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular; wherein the first one of the plurality of second openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of second openings is semi- circular. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable shape of openings formed in an RDL in plan view to lower connection resistance; providing RDLs having an impedance calibrator for adjusting the impedance of the semiconductor device [paragraph [0015], [0033] of Lee et al. and paragraph [0050] of Sato].
Regarding claims 28-32, Wu et al. discloses in Fig. 9C, paragraph [0043] a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate [302];
a first redistribution layer (RDL) [first 308] formed over a first surface of the substrate [302];
a first insulating layer [310A] formed over the first RDL [308];
a second RDL [311A] formed over the first insulating layer [310A], and the first RDL [308] is disposed between the first surface of the substrate [302] and second RDL [311A] and a first conductive via is formed through the first insulating layer [310A] electrically connecting the first RDL [308] and second RDL [311A]; and
a plurality of first openings formed in the second RDL [311A] and extending through the second RDL [311A] to the first insulating layer [310A] around at least a portion of the first conductive via,
a second insulating layer [310B] formed over the second RDL [311A] and extending into the plurality of first openings of the second RDL [311A] to provide stress relief;
a third RDL [311B] formed over the second insulating layer [310B] and a second conductive via formed through the second insulating layer [310B] electrically connecting the second RDL [311A] and third RDL [311B];
a plurality of second openings formed in the third RDL [311B] and extending through the third RDL [311B] to the second insulating layer [310B] around at least a portion of the second conductive via
wherein a second one of the plurality of first openings is laterally separated from a first one of the plurality of first openings by a portion of the second RDL [311A];
wherein a second one of the plurality of second openings is laterally separated from a first one of the plurality of second openings by a portion of the third RDL [311B];
wherein the first one of the plurality of second openings is offset to be outside a vertical projection of the first one of the plurality of first openings and further outside a vertical projection of the second one of the plurality of first openings, and the second one of the plurality of second openings is offset to be outside a vertical projection of the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Notes, the limitation of “to provide stress relief” directs to an intended use of the first opening. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wu et al. fails to disclose
wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL;
wherein the second RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of first openings;
wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL;
wherein the third RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of second openings;
wherein the first one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular;
wherein the first one of the plurality of second openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of second openings is semi- circular.
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 5D, Fig. 5G-5I, Fig. 6A-6B
wherein an RDL [10R] is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL [10R];
wherein an RDL [10R] extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of openings [45];
wherein the first one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular [Fig. 5G].
For providing support for an RDL that is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL, and semi-circular openings are formed in an RDL, Sato is cited.
Sato discloses in Fig. 1B, Fig. 3B-3C
wherein an RDL [104] is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL [104];
wherein an RDL [104] extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of openings [106a, b];
wherein one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular.
Thus, it would be obvious to apply the teachings of Lee et al. and Sato to any RDL (first RDL, second RDL and/or third RDL) disclosed by Wu et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. and Sato into the method of Wu et al. to include wherein the first RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the first RDL; wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL; wherein the second RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of first openings; wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL; wherein the third RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of second openings; wherein the first one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular; wherein the first one of the plurality of second openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of second openings is semi- circular. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable shape of openings formed in an RDL in plan view to lower connection resistance; providing RDLs having an impedance calibrator for adjusting the impedance of the semiconductor device [paragraph [0015], [0033] of Lee et al. and paragraph [0050] of Sato].
Claims 7, 11 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pub. 20200075488) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20240196515), Sato (US Pub. 20110079419) and Daubenspeck et al. (US Pub. 20100164096).
Regarding claims 7, 11 and 27, Wu et al. discloses in Fig. 9C, paragraph [0043] a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate [302];
a first redistribution layer (RDL) [first 308] formed over the substrate [302];
a first insulating layer [310A] formed over the first RDL [308];
a second RDL [311A] formed over the first insulating layer [310A] and a first conductive via formed through the first insulating layer [310A] electrically connecting the first RDL [308] and second RDL [311A];
a plurality of first openings formed in the second RDL [311A] and extending through the second RDL [311A] to the first insulating layer [310A] around at least a portion of the first conductive via, wherein a second one of the plurality of first openings is laterally separated from a first one of the plurality of first openings by a portion of the second RDL [311A];
a second insulating layer [310B] formed over the second RDL [311A] and extending into the plurality of first openings of the second RDL [311A] to provide stress relief;
a third RDL [311B] formed over the second insulating layer [310B] with a second conductive via formed through the second insulating layer [310B] electrically connecting the second RDL [311A] and third RDL [311B]; and
a plurality of second openings formed in the third RDL [311B] and extending through the third RDL [311B] to the second insulating layer [310B] around at least a portion of the second conductive via, wherein a second one of the plurality of second openings is laterally separated from a first one of the plurality of second openings by a portion of the third RDL [311B];
wherein the plurality of first openings formed in the second RDL [311A] is offset from the plurality of second openings formed in the third RDL [311B];
wherein the first one of the plurality of second openings is offset to be outside a vertical projection of the first one of the plurality of first openings and further outside a vertical projection of the second one of the plurality of first openings, and the second one of the plurality of second openings is offset to be outside a vertical projection of the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Notes, the limitation of “to provide stress relief” directs to an intended use of the first opening. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wu et al. fails to disclose
wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL;
wherein the second RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of first openings;
wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL;
wherein the third RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of second openings;
wherein the first one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular;
wherein the first one of the plurality of second openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of second openings is semi- circular;
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 5D, Fig. 5G-5I, Fig. 6A-6B
wherein an RDL [10R] is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL [10R];
wherein an RDL [10R] extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of openings [45];
wherein the first one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular [Fig. 5G].
For providing support for an RDL that is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL, and semi-circular openings are formed in an RDL, Sato is cited.
Sato discloses in Fig. 1B, Fig. 3B-3C
wherein an RDL [104] is electrically common throughout all portions of the RDL [104];
wherein an RDL [104] extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of openings [106a, b];
wherein one of the plurality of openings is semi-circular.
Thus, it would be obvious to apply the teachings of Lee et al. and Sato to any RDL (i.e., second RDL and/or third RDL) disclosed by Wu et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. and Sato into the method of Wu et al. to include wherein the second RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the second RDL; wherein the second RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of first openings; wherein the third RDL is electrically common throughout all portions of the third RDL; wherein the third RDL extends around and completely encloses each of the plurality of second openings; wherein the first one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of first openings is semi-circular; wherein the first one of the plurality of second openings is semi-circular and the second one of the plurality of second openings is semi- circular. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable shape of openings formed in an RDL in plan view to lower connection resistance; providing RDLs having an impedance calibrator for adjusting the impedance of the semiconductor device [paragraph [0015], [0033] of Lee et al. and paragraph [0050] of Sato].
Wu et al. suggests in Fig. 9C that
the first one of the plurality of second openings being offset with respect to the first one of the plurality of first openings; and
the second one of the plurality of second openings being offset with respect to the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Lee et al. and Sato suggest the openings are semi-circular.
Thus, the combination of Wu et al., Lee et al. and Sato discloses
a semi-circle of the first one of the plurality of second openings being offset with respect to a semi- circle of the first one of the plurality of first openings; and
a semi- circle of the second one of the plurality of second openings being offset with respect to a semi- circle of the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Wu et al., Lee et al. and Sato fails to disclose
the semi-circle of the first one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi- circle of the first one of the plurality of first openings;
the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Daubenspeck et al. suggests in Fig. 7 a suitable arrangement of offset openings including a semi-circle of one of a plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to a semi- circle of one of a plurality of first openings.
Incorporating arrangement of offset semi-circles of openings as suggested by Daubenspeck et al. into Wu et al., Lee et al. and Sato would result to “the semi-circle of the first one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi- circle of the first one of the plurality of first openings; the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of first openings.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. and Daubenspeck et al. into the method of Wu et al. to include the semi-circle of the first one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi- circle of the first one of the plurality of first openings; the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of first openings. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable arrangement of offset semi-circular openings in plan view to direct stresses away from the metal pads, wires and interconnects.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Pub. 20200075488) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20240196515), Sato (US Pub. 20110079419) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Daubenspeck et al. (US Pub. 20100164096).
Regarding claim 26, Wu et al. suggests in Fig. 9C that
the first one of the plurality of second openings being offset with respect to the first one of the plurality of first openings; and
the second one of the plurality of second openings being offset with respect to the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Lee et al. and Sato suggest the openings are semi-circular.
Thus, the combination of Wu et al., Lee et al. and Sato discloses
a semi-circle of the first one of the plurality of second openings being offset with respect to a semi- circle of the first one of the plurality of first openings; and
a semi- circle of the second one of the plurality of second openings being offset with respect to a semi- circle of the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Wu et al., Lee et al. and Sato fails to disclose
the semi-circle of the first one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi- circle of the first one of the plurality of first openings;
the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of first openings.
Daubenspeck et al. suggests in Fig. 7 a suitable arrangement of offset openings including a semi-circle of one of a plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to a semi- circle of one of a plurality of first openings.
Incorporating arrangement of offset semi-circles of openings as suggested by Daubenspeck et al. into Wu et al., Lee et al. and Sato would result to “the semi-circle of the first one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi- circle of the first one of the plurality of first openings; the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of first openings.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. and Daubenspeck et al. into the method of Wu et al. to include the semi-circle of the first one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi- circle of the first one of the plurality of first openings; the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of second openings being rotationally offset with respect to the semi-circle of the second one of the plurality of first openings. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable arrangement of offset semi-circular openings in plan view to direct stresses away from the metal pads, wires and interconnects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, 11, 26-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights