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 .
This Office Action is in response to the election filed January 19, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on January 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there are no reference characters from any of the drawings in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 102216143 B1).
In regard to claim 1, Chung teaches a metal pillar 11/12 for conductive connection, formed into a column-shaped metal pillar of a certain length, wherein the metal pillar 11/12 has an electrical conductivity of 50% IACS, which is in the range of 11 to 101% IACS and a Vickers hardness of 600 HV or more or less, which is in the range of 150 to 300 HV (Figure 7, pages 7-8).
In regard to claim 2, Chung teaches diameter of the metal pillar 11/12 being 20µm or more, which is in the range of 50 to 300µm and the height of the metal pillar 11/12 being 60 to 300µm (Figure 7, pages 7-8).
In regard to claim 3, Chung teaches aspect ratio(height/diameter) of the metal pillar being 1.2 to 5 (Figure 7, pages 7-8).
In regard to claim 4, discovering the desired melting point of the metal pillar is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
In regard to claim 5, discovering the desired tensile strength of the metal pillar is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
In regard to claim 6, Chung teaches the metal pillar 11/12 being mainly composed of one metal selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ag, Au, Pt, and Pd (Figure 7, pages 7-8).
In regard to claim 7, discovering the desired the weight percentage of a desired metal is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
In regard to claim 8, discovering the desired thermal conductivity of the metal pillar is within the level of ordinary skill and requires only routine experimentation.
However, Chung fails to teach the metal pillar formed by cutting a metal wire.
In regard to claim 1, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the metal pillar formed by cutting a metal wire to obtain the desired electrical connection (ABSTRACT).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to metal pillars:
Cho (KR 102273299 B1) Demura et al. (JP 2000232265 A)
Kawashiro (US 2011/0237065 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
IMS
February 9, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898