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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in the present application. Applicant’s petition filed 11 May 2026 has been fully considered but was dismissed in the Petition Description filed 22 June 2026. As such, the Election of Species Requirement set forth in the Office Action filed 8 October 2025 remains FINAL. Accordingly, Claims 8 – 20 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) set forth in the previous Office Action filed 9 February 2026, on pages 8 – 9 of the previous reply filed 11 May 2026, Applicant asserts:
The drawings comply with 37 CFR 1.83(a)
Applicant’s arguments in this regard have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore, the associated objection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action filed 9 February 2026, Applicant’s amendments in the previous reply filed 11 May 2026 are found sufficient to overcome the associated rejection. Accordingly, said rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action filed 9 February 2026, Applicant’s amendments in the previous reply filed 11 May 2026 are found sufficient to overcome the associated rejection. Accordingly, said rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the previous Office Action filed 9 February 2026, on page 10 of the previous reply filed 11 May 2026, Applicant asserts:
The Examiner has not explicitly stated which of the obviousness rationales endorsed in KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007) are being used.
To ensure the record is clear, the Examiner has revisited the associated obviousness statements to combine VAGHELA and LIN, which has also been done in light of the change in scope of the interpretation of the prior art necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the previous Office Action filed 9 February 2026, on pages 10 – 11 of the previous reply filed 11 May 2026, Applicant asserts:
The process sequence disclosed in VAGHELA is critically different from the method recited by claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments in this regard have been fully considered but are moot. Applicant’s arguments pivot on the item-to-item mapping presented by the Examiner in the associated prior art rejection of the previous Office Action. However, Applicant’s amendments have changed the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the Examiner has changed the scope of the interpretation of the prior art and provided a different item-to-item mapping for the associated prior art rejection in the present Office Action, which moots Applicant’s argument.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 2 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the previous Office Action filed 9 February 2026, on page 12 of the previous reply filed 11 May 2026, Applicant asserts:
Dependent claims 2-7 are allowable for, among other reasons, depending from allowable claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments in this regard have been fully considered but are moot. Applicant’s arguments pivot on the allowability of the associated base claim. However, under the new set of rejections presented in this Office Action, the associated base claim is not found allowable, which moots Applicant’s argument.
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 – 4 & 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAGHELA (US 20120119364 A1) in view of LIN (US 20200258752 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
VAGHELA discloses:
A method of forming an interconnect (Fig. 1A – 1H) comprising:
forming (Fig. 1A; Par. 12) a seed layer (118) over a pad (108);
patterning (Fig. 1B; Par. 13) a layer of photoresist (120) with an opening (122) exposing the pad (108);
forming (Fig. 1C; Par. 14) a copper interconnect (124) by electroplating (Par. 14) the copper interconnect (124) into the opening (122);
removing (Fig. 1D; Par. 16) the layer of photoresist (120);
etching (Fig. 1E; Par. 17) the seed layer (118);
forming (Fig. 1C & 1G) one or more layers (126/138) on the copper interconnect (124);
(Note, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “one or more layers” is mapped to 126 and 138 as a whole—hereinafter denoted 126/138—where 126 is formed in Fig. 1C, prior to forming and patterning 134 in Fig. 1F, and 138 is formed in Fig. 1G, after forming and patterning 134 in Fig. 1F.)
patterning (Fig. 1F; Par. 18 & 19) a layer of polyimide (134) over the copper interconnect (124) to form (Fig. 1F; Par. 18) at least one opening (136) over the copper interconnect (124); and
wirebonding (Par. 21) directly to the one or more layers (138 of 126/138) through the at least one opening (136) in the layer of polycide (134);
(Par. 21 describes a wire bond in place of the reflow bump 150 presented in Fig. 1H, satisfying this limitation.)
wherein each of the one or more layers (126/138) is formed on the copper interconnect (124) prior to patterning the layer of polyimide (134).
(Note, as previously described, 126 of 126/138 is formed on 124 prior to patterning 134. Further, “formed entirely prior to” is clearly of a different scope than “formed prior to” but would still constitute a proper broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “formed prior to”. Similarly, “formed partially prior to” is clearly of a different scope than “formed prior to” but would still constitute a proper broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “formed prior to”. Accordingly, each of the 126/138 is—partially—formed on 124 prior to patterning 134.)
VAGHELA does not disclose:
a plurality of the pads;
a plurality of the openings exposing the plurality of pads;
a plurality of the copper interconnects;
LIN discloses:
a plurality of the pads (Fig. 10: 74; Par. 79);
a plurality of the openings (Fig. 10: gaps between 86s; Par. 81)
exposing the plurality of pads (74);
a plurality of the copper interconnects (Fig. 10: 90; Par. 82);
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of VAGHELA with those of LIN in order to obtain a plurality of the devices of VAGHELA to enable a plurality of the pads; a plurality of the openings exposing the plurality of pads; and a plurality of the copper interconnects in VAGHELA according to the teachings of LIN for the purposes of practical application and implementation of such devices, which were well-known design incentives in the art, as evidenced by LIN Par. 55. Such a modification constitutes a predictable variation of a known work in response to a known design incentive, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
Regarding Claim 2,
VAGHELA discloses:
The method of claim 1,
wherein forming the one or more layers (138 of 126/138) on the at least one copper interconnect (124) further comprises electroless plating (Fig. 1G; Par. 20).
Regarding Claim 3,
VAGHELA discloses:
The method of claim 2,
wherein the one or more layers (138 of 126/138) comprise one of nickel, gold, palladium, or any combination thereof (Fig. 1G; Par. 20).
Regarding Claim 4,
VAGHELA does not disclose:
The method of claim 1,
wherein forming the one or more layers (126 of 126/138) on the at least one copper interconnect (124) further comprises sputtering.
LIN discloses:
wherein forming the one or more layers (Fig. 10: 92 of 88; Par. 82) on the at least one copper interconnect (Fig. 10: 90 of 88; Par. 82) further comprises sputtering.
(Par. 26, “Forming the plurality of electrical contacts [88] may include…sputtering”. Also see Par. 82, which teaches “The electrical contacts 88 may be any type of electrical contact disclosed herein” with regard to Fig. 10, specifically.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of VAGHELA with those of LIN such that forming the one or more layers of VAGHELA comprised the method of LIN to enable the forming of the one or more layers on the at least one copper interconnect to further comprises sputtering in VAGHELA according to the teachings of LIN, as LIN identifies electroplating, sputtering, and other methods (LIN Par. 25 – 26) as a finite number of predictable methods for forming the one or more layers. Furthermore, 92 of LIN and 126 of VAGHELA are clearly analogous as both: comprise similar materials (VAGHELA Par. 15 & LIN Par. 82); are formed on copper (VAGHELA Par. 14 & LIN Par. 82); and are used for a similar purpose. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try sputtering as a method to form 126 of 126/138 with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, such a modification constitutes choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 6,
VAGHELA discloses:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the seed layer (118) comprises a titanium tungsten film or a copper film.
(Par. 12 teaches 118 may comprise titanium tungsten alloy and copper.)
Regarding Claim 7,
VAGHELA does not disclose:
The method of claim 1,
further comprising backgrinding a second side (side opposite to 108) of a semiconductor substrate (Par. 10 teaches the device portions of Fig. 1A – 1H overlay a semiconductor substrate) to thin the semiconductor substrate, the second side opposing a first side (topside) comprising the plurality of pads (108) .
LIN discloses:
further comprising backgrinding a second side (Fig. 10: side opposing first side 76 comprising 74s, Par. 79 & 84) of a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 10: 72, Par. 84; which may be any type of wafer disclosed in LIN, Par.79; which includes several types of semiconductor substrates, Par. 63) to thin the semiconductor substrate (Par. 84, “[T]he method for forming a semiconductor package as depicted in FIG. 10 may include…grinding the backside of the [semiconductor substrate] to the plurality of notches [96]”), the second side opposing a first side comprising the plurality of pads.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of VAGHELA in view of LIN further with those of LIN such that the plurality of the devices of VAGHELA in view of LIN—as established for Claim 1—may be easily singulated (LIN Par. 74) to enable the method of VAGHELA in view of LIN to further comprise backgrinding a second side of a semiconductor substrate to thin the semiconductor substrate, the second side opposing a first side comprising the plurality of pads in VAGHELA in view of LIN according to the further teachings of LIN for the purposes of practical application and implementation of such devices, including their packaging, which were well-known design incentives in the art, as evidenced by LIN Par. 77. Such a modification constitutes a predictable variation of a known work in response to a known design incentive, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAGHELA in view of LIN and in further view of DALAL (US 20090152100 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
VAGHELA discloses:
The method of claim 4,
wherein the one or more layers (126/138) comprise one of: nickel, palladium, gold, and copper (138; Par. 20); or nickel, palladium, gold, and silver (126; Par. 15).
LIN discloses:
wherein the one or more layers (92 of 88) comprise tin and silver (Par. 82)
VAGHELA and LIN do not disclose:
wherein the one or more layers comprise one of: titanium, nickel, and gold; or titanium, nickel, and palladium.
DALAL discloses:
wherein the one or more layers (Fig. 12: 117/118) comprise one of: titanium, nickel, and gold; or titanium, nickel, and palladium (Par. 109).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of VAGHELA with those of DALAL such that the one or more layers of VAGHELA are substituted with the one or more layers of DALAL to enable the one or more layers to comprise one of: titanium, nickel, and gold; or titanium, nickel, and palladium in VAGHELA according to the teachings of DALAL, as VAGHELA and DALAL both teach the one or more layers (VAGHELA 126/138; DALAL 117/118) serve the same function of providing an appropriate stack of intermediate metal layers between the copper interconnect (VAGHELA 124; DALAL 115) and the wire bond (VAGHELA Par. 21; DALAL Par. 109) for such devices. Therefore, on having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the one or more layers of DALAL for the one or more layers of VAGHELA with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, such a modification constitutes the simple substitution of known elements for other known elements to obtain predictable results, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B).
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 Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights