DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B, as shown in Figure 2 on which claims 1-8 are readable in the reply filed on 4/21/2026 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)).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE WITH DAM STRUCTURE
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “length” without providing a reference direction in which a “length” is measured. As such, one cannot distinguish between, for example length or width or height. For the purposes of this office action, it will be assumed that the recitation “length” is equivalent of “length along the first direction”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Seong (US 20210082924), hereinafter Seong.
Regarding claim 1, Seong (refer to Figures 4, 9A and markup of Figure 4 provided below; also see para 52) teaches a semiconductor structure (described as "semiconductor memory device" in para 4), comprising:
a substrate (110, described as "substrate 110" in para 54); and
a connecting layer disposed on the substrate and comprising:
a plurality of connection pads (labelled LP-CP-1, LP-CP-2. LP-CP-3, LP-CP-4 in markup of Figure 4 below; also see Note 1) arranged along a first direction (x-direction, best seen in Figures 4 and 9A) and a third direction (y-direction, best seen in Figure 4) to form a connection pad array (formed by multiple similar rows of LP-CP-1, LP-CP-2. LP-CP-3, LP-CP-4 – see Note 1);
a dam structure (labelled “Dam structure (DM)” in markup of Figure 4 below; note that para 39 describes “dam structure DM” which comprises DMX and DMY – see Figure 4; also it is equivalent of 190D of Figure 9A, which is also described as “dam structure 190D” in para 105, wherein 190D comprises DMX and DMY – see para 112) disposed at a side of the connection pad array (LP-CP-1, LP-CP-2. LP-CP-3, LP-CP-4) and extending along the first direction (DMX is extending along x-direction, best seen in Figure 4); and
a plurality of first extension pads (labelled LP-FEP-1 in markup of Figure 4 below, also see Note 1 for “plurality”) and a plurality of second extension pads (labelled LP-SEP-1, in markup of Figure 4 below, also see Note 1), extending along a second direction (i.e. z-direction because each has a depth, best seen in Figure 9A), alternately arranged between (see markup of Figure 4 below) the dam structure (DM or 190D) and the connection pad array (LP-CP-1, LP-CP-2. LP-CP-3, LP-CP-4) along the first direction (x-direction), and aligned with the plurality of connection pads along the second direction (as all CP have depth aligned along z-direction, best seen in Figure 9A), wherein the plurality of first extension pads (LP-FEP-1) and the plurality of second extension pads (LP-SEP-1) are separated from the dam structure (best seen in markup of Figure 4A).
Note 1: LP of Figure 4 are described in para 23 as “landing pads LP” and they are equivalent of 190 of Figure 9A, also described as “plurality of landing pads 190” in para 105. These LP/190 are arranged along a first direction (x-direction, best seen in Figures 4 and 9A) and a third direction (y-direction, best seen in Figure 4), and also extending along a second direction (i.e. z-direction, best seen in Figure 9A). Given that recited “plurality of connection pads” and “plurality of first extension pads” and “plurality of first extension pads” in claim 1 are essentially pads (noting any pad that works for connection can also be considered an extension of a connection), any of them can read on “landing pads LP” or “landing pads 190”. As such, some of any of the plurality of LP (190) may read on recited “plurality of connection pads” or recited “plurality of first extension pads” or “plurality of second extension pads”, because of the very broad recitation and coverage sought by claim 1. This is the basis for markup of Figure 4 below where some LP have been labelled “plurality of connection pads” (labelled LP-CP-1, LP-CP-2, LP-CP-3, LP-CP-4) or recited “plurality of first extension pads” (labelled LP-FEP-1) or “plurality of second extension pads” (labelled LP-SEP-1,). Labels are shown for only one row of Figure 4 but it applies similarly to other rows of Figure 4, so that it forms “plurality” of extension pads and corresponding recited arrays.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Seong teaches the semiconductor structure according to claim 1, wherein in the second direction (i.e. z-direction), a distance between the dam structure (DM or 190D, comprising DMX and DMY) and one of the plurality of first extension pads and the plurality of second extension pads (e.g. distance along x-direction between LP-SEP-1 and DMY) is greater than a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of connection pads (e.g. distance along x-direction between LP-CP-1 and LP-CP-2).
Regarding claim 3, Seong teaches the semiconductor structure according to claim 1, wherein an inner edge of the dam structure (i.e. inner edge of DMX or DMY) adjacent to the plurality of first extension pads (LP-FEP-1) and the plurality of second extension pads (LP-SEP-1) has a linear contour (best seen in markup of Figure 4 where both DMX and DMY are shown to have linear inner edges).
Regarding claim 5, Seong teaches the semiconductor structure according to claim 1, wherein end portions of the plurality of first extension pads (LP-FEP-1) and end portions of the plurality of second extension pads (LP-SEP-1) close to the dam structure (i.e. to part DMY of DM) are aligned with each other in the first direction (i.e. aligned in x-direction, best seen in markup of Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Seong teaches the semiconductor structure according to claim 1, wherein end portions of the plurality of first extension pads LP-FEP-1) and end portions of the plurality of second extension pads (LP-SEP-1) close to the dam structure (i.e. to part DMY of DM) are alternately arranged (i.e. arranged in x-direction with LP:FEP-1, then LP: SEP-1 next to it) in the first direction (i.e. x-direction).
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KI (US 20180076105), hereinafter KI.
Regarding claim 4, Seong teaches the semiconductor structure according to claim 1, but does not teach a length of one of the plurality of first extension pads (LP-FEP-1) “is different from” a length of one of the plurality of second extension pads (LP-SEP-1). However, landing pads with different lengths are known in the art; e.g. KI (US 20180076105), which also teaches a semiconductor structure with plurality of landing pads (122, comprising 122b, 122c – see para 29 and Figures 6-7), comprising a plurality of first extension pads (122b) and a plurality of second extension pads (122c), such that a length of one of the plurality of first extension pads (122b) is different from” a length of one of the plurality of second extension pads (112c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Seong so that a length of one of the plurality of first extension pads is different from a length of one of the plurality of second extension pads. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seong for at least the purpose of accommodating a design where some of the landing pads have to be arranged around a hole (see para 29 and Figure 7 of KI).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations that require “in the second direction, a distance between the dam structure and one of the plurality of first extension pads is greater than a distance between the dam structure and one of the plurality of second extension pads”. Note that “in the second direction” (i.e. z-direction) of Seong, there is no motivation to modify the plurality of first extension pads from the plurality of second extension pads (i.e. contact pads of Seong).
Claim 8 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations that require “end portions of the plurality of first extension pads and end portions of the plurality of second extension pads correspond to wave trough area and wave crest area of the wavy contour, respectively”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY ARORA whose telephone number is (571)272-8347. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Drew Richards can be reached at 5712721736. 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.
/AJAY ARORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights